Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barmouth Urban District Council Bill,

Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill,

Blackburn Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Chester Corporation Bill,

Corporation of London (Bridge) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Crowborough District Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Derby Corporation Bill,

Edmonton Urban District Council Bill,

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,

Grand Junction Company Bill,

Great Western Railway Bill,

Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

Hendon Urban District Council Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Leamington and Warwick Traction Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Lewes Corporation Bill,

Llanelly Corporation Bill,

Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill,

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,

London Electric Railway Companies (Coordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Methodist Church Union Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Metropolitan Railway Bill,

Metropolitan Water Board Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Nottingham Corporation Bill,

Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill,

Royal Victoria and other Docks Approaches (Improvement) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Smethwick Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Soke and City of Peterborough Bill,

Southampton Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill,

Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

South Suburban Gas Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Torquay Extramural Cemetery Company Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Tyne Improvement Bill,

Westminster City (Millbank) Improvement Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Winchester Water and Gas Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Southport Corporation Bill,

Order, [25th January] "That the Bill be read a Second time," read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INTERNAL CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Mr. LOOKER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Nanking Government to abolish likin (internal customs duties) in accordance with their undertaking; whether any fresh internal taxation in substitution for likin is being levied or contemplated; and, if so, can he state the nature of such substituted taxation and by whom it will be borne?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No steps have yet been taken, so far as I am aware, to abolish likin. I understand that the reorganisation of the fiscal system is now under the consideration of the Chinese Government. It is too early for definite information to be available but what appears to be contemplated is the levy of consumption taxes for local requirements after the goods have passed out of the possession of the importers.

Mr. LOOKER: Will the Foreign Secretary take steps to ascertain the nature of these consumption taxes, and whether they are consistent with treaty rights between this country and China and the proclamation of the Nanking Government that no further internal taxation will be levied either on import or on arrival at destination?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am endeavouring to obtain all the information possible about the nature of the proposed taxes, but I cannot get it at all at present.

BRITISH PROPERTY, HANKOW (OCCUPATION AND TAXATION).

Mr. LOOKER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the tenants of Lot No. 111b, in the ex-British concession at Hankow, were forcibly ejected by Chinese troops at the beginning of 1927, who proceeded to occupy the premises in conjunction with a Chinese concern calling itself the Hankow day school; that such ejection and occupation was and is a violation of the regulations
relating to the ex-British concession at Hankow made pursuant to the Chen-O'Malley agreement; that the premises concerned are owned by a British subject and are mortgaged to a British subject; that the owner has received no rent and the mortgagee no interest since the ejection; that the occupiers refuse to pay for the water they consume and are protected in this refusal by Chinese troops; that the sum of tls. 17.640.90 is due to the bureau administering the district for taxes and water consumed which it is unable to collect owing to the occupation and protection referred to; and will he state what action he proposes to take to secure the observance of the regulations and the protection of the British interests involved?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have just received a report from His Majesty's Minister on this case. His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow has made representations to the local authorities in regard to it, I do not yet know with what result.

Mr. LOOKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know the result of his representations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

Mr. LOOKER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that about August last the bureau administering the ex-British concession at Hankow pursuant to the Chen-O'Malley agreement were instructed by the Chinese authorities to impose a tax on all property of 30 per cent. of one month's rent for barrack building, and a tax of 10 per cent. for bandit suppression; that such taxation is not authorised by the provisions of Articles 13 and 16 of the regulations made under the Chen-O'Malley agreement; that payment of such taxes is nevertheless being enforced from Chinese and British owners of property; and will he state what steps he proposes to take to secure the observance of the regulations and to protect the British interests involved?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: This breach of the Chen-O'Malley agreement has been reported to me by His Majesty's Minister, but the statement that payment is enforced from British property owners is not confirmed. Representations to the local authorities have been made by His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that British property owners, even if not directly concerned are, indirectly concerned in this tax owing to the fact that they own properties jointly with the Chinese?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I did not catch the hon. Member's question.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British property owners come within the scope of this tax even if they are not directly affected because wherever they own property jointly with Chinese they have to pay their share of the tax?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The first question I should want answered is whether, in fact, the British do own property either in whole or in part.

TREATY REVISION.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose to open negotiations with the Chinese Government for the revision of the existing treaties?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The further questions involved in treaty revision were dicussed by His Majesty's Minister during his recent negotiations with the Chinese authorities on the subject of the tariff, and the whole subject is now being considered by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: In view of the very large business interests at stake in China, has the right hon. Gentleman thought of sending out British trade union leaders to co-operate there?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess that I have not considered sending out either trade unionist leaders or representatives of the employers. I do not think that that would be necessary, though we are, of course, through the Board of Trade, in close touch with commercial interests in that country.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the very considerable efforts that the American Government are making to secure trading operations under the Constitution of China—

Colonel WOODCOCK: We cannot hear a word!

Mr. SMITH: —and does ho not think it worth while to consider in these circumstances, as a new China is being established, the making of a special effort to develop our trading relations with China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member passes from one subject to another rather rapidly. His first proposal was that trade union leaders should be sent out to help in the negotiations in regard to such treaty revision as is necessary. That, I think, is not a suggestion upon which it would be wise to act. As regards trade propaganda in China, I should be glad if he would communicate with the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade.

WAR MEMORIAL, HANKOW.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the damage done to the war memorial at Hankow on the 4th January, 1927, and to which Mr. Chen on behalf of the Nationalist Government undertook to effect the necessary repairs, has yet been repaired?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no further information since the reply returned to my Hon. and gallant Friend on the 7th March last.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In view of the fact that a year has passed and the monument has not yet been repaired, will my right hon. Friend keep this in mind in the negotiations with the Chinese?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will make inquiries as to how the matter stands at present.

LATE GRAND DUKE NICHOLAS.

Viscount SANDON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that a number of French and Italian representatives of high rank attended officially the funeral on the Riviera and the memorial service in Paris of the Grand Duke Nicholas, former commander-in-chief of the Russian forces in the War, whether the British Government and British Army were officially represented at these two ceremonies; and, if so, by whom?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government and the British Army were
not represented at the services referred to in the question, but His Majesty's Government and the Army Council were represented at the corresponding memorial service held in London on the same day.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we did not send a special deputation, in view of the fact that both the Italian and the French Governments were represented by high officials?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Because His Majesty's Government thought it was sufficient that we should be represented at the ceremony which was held in this country.

Sir A. KNOX: Could we not have sent the military attache at Paris at the cost of a railway fare?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; it is not a question of the expense of a railway ticket.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would this not have been a gracious recognition of the great service of the Russian Army to the Allied cause during the War?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I think it was right and due to the services of the Russians in the War that we should mark our respect, but that was done by attendance at the memorial service in this country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: My question was whether this would not have been a gracious recognition of the services of the Russian soldiers in the late War and their great services to our cause.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

BRITISH POLICY.

Mr. THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the attitude which His Majesty's Government propose to adopt in relation to the present disturbances in Afghanistan?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering in the internal affaire of
Afghanistan by supporting or assisting any of the parties at present contending for power in that country. They earnestly desire the establishment of a strong central Government, and they will be prepared, when this Government is established, to show their friendship for the Afghan people by giving it such assistance as they can in the reconstruction and development of the country. King Amanulla has formally announced his abdication to His Majesty's Government, and consequently, until it is clear that in spite of this abdication he is regarded as their King by the people of Afghanistan generally, His Majesty's Government are unable to regard his Government as the rightful Afghan Government.

ASSISTANCE TO GERMAN NATIONALS.

Viscount SANDON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether suitable recognition was spontaneously and at once given by the German Government to our Government as to the rescue of her nationals from Kabul by British aircraft?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: At the end of last year I received from the German Ambassador an expression of his warm thanks for the services rendered, and the German Government similarly expressed their thanks to His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin some 10 days later. I may perhaps quote the terms of the communiation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
They would take the opportunity of expressing to His Majesty's Government their sincere thanks for the assistance rendered by them and by the Indian Government in rescuing the German women and children from Kabul in the most difficult circumstances. The German Government request that their thanks may also be conveyed to the Government of India.

Viscount SANDON: Was any similar communication given by the German Government to the German Press?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I understand that the Press Bureau of the Foreign Office in Berlin did make a communication to the German Press, and I think it is regrettable that the German Press paid so little attention to it.

BRITISH LEGATION AND CONSULATES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what has
been the attitude of the Afghan factions towards the British Mission or Consulates?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The various parties have all respected the sanctity of the British Legation at Kabul, although considerable material damage was done to the buildings last December, when the Legation lay in the line of fire between the forces of King Amanullah and Habibulla Khan. Similarly, the postion of the British Consul at Jalalabad appears to have been respected by all parties, although there has been a report, not confirmed, that the Consulate suffered damage in the course of the disturbances. No disturbances have taken place in the area of the British Consulate at Kandahar.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report, which I hope is wrong, that it is proposed to withdraw Sir Francis Humphrys and his staff from Kabul?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that question arises. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to ask a question on the subject, perhaps he will be good enough to put it on the Paper.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recent bombing accident on the frontier has had any effect upon the Afghans?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not as far I know.

YUGOSLAVIA.

Mr. MALONE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any special instructions have been issued to His Majesty's representative in Belgrade regarding relations with the new regime in Yugoslavia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision he has reached in the case of Mr. A. J. Brewer, second officer of the Clan Line ss. "Clan Lamont," who, after arrest on the charge of theft of £l, was imprisoned for nine months
while awaiting trial in Portuguese West Africa, and was then condemned to 360 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and what action he has decided to take?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Instructions are being sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon to request the Portuguese Government to order a revision of Mr. Brewer's case.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will any question of compensation arise?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, at any rate not at this stage. What we are asking for is a revision of the trial.

MERCANTILE MARINE (SAFETY REGULATIONS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government has submitted a Memorandum on the British proposals for the revision of the 1914 international agreement for the protection of human life at sea; and the nature of the proposals therein contained?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Memorandum comments in detail on the British proposals, and in some cases puts forward other suggestions bearing on the various technical questions which will come up for discussion at the forthcoming Conference for the revision of the 1914 Convention.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (ARBITRATION TREATY).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. Kellogg in Washington on 24th January that another attempt would be made before 4th March to hasten the negotiations for the conclusion of a new arbitration treaty with Great Britain, and that a draft treaty had been forwarded to London 13 months ago, but the British Government had not yet signified either its aproval or rejection; and whether all the replies are now to hand from the several Dominion Governments on this subject?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the report of the statement attributed to Mr. Kellogg. We have not yet received the answer of one of the Dominion Governments to the inquiry which we addressed to all of them last March, and the considered replies of two others were only received during the last few weeks. In this connection it should be remembered that the attention of all our Governments was for a considerable part of last year concentrated on the negotiations for the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, which it was necessary to bring to a successful conclusion before taking up more closely the Arbitration Treaty. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are now engaged in a careful examination and comparison of the observations of the Dominion Governments as well as of the material which they have themselves collected. They attach the highest importance to obtaining complete agreement among all His Majesty's Governments, and further exchanges of opinion will be necessary before they can send a definite reply. I may add that this Treaty is of particular importance, as it will presumably form the model for many others.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not the fact that the Kellogg Pact outlaws war altogether; and, in view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary, on Monday of this week, said that we had signed that Treaty without any reservations whatever, will he, in preparing this draft, take the same view, that it should be all-inclusive?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what kind of Arbitration Treaty we should desire to see until the examination and communication of which I have already spoken arc complete, but I will try to make myself, by my conduct, as consistent as I can.

Mr. SPEAKER: Colonel Woodcock.

Mr. SMITH: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has received a very full answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

EX-MATES.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number
of requests which have been made during the last two years by officers of the ex-mate class to take specialist courses; and what number have been selected?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Twenty-one officers, ex-mates, applied to take specialist courses, of whom 10 were selected.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this proportion of ex-mates is very small, and is there any reason why they should not receive a larger proportion of these opportunities?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; I do not think that the proportion is small.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of Lieut.-Commanders (ex-mate class) who have been promoted to the rank of Commander since the 1920 scheme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Two ex-mates have ben promoted to Commander on the Active List since June, 1926, when the first officer (ex-mate) came within the zone for promotion to Commander.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this a very small proportion of promotion for these officers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is only since 1926. The 1920 scheme was a scheme for the special retirement of surplus officers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have not at least 100 officers who were not ex-mates been promoted during the same period?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, when only two of these officers out of the whole number have been promoted, it is quite disproportionate to the total number of promotions since then?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a matter of opinion. I have no prejudice against the scheme, and I cannot admit that it is a small proportion.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the number is so small? Is it due to a lack of candidates, or to limitations imposed by the regulations?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say off-hand. If the hon. Member will put down a question raising that point, I will give him an answer.

DISABLEMENT AND SERVICE PENSIONS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether seeing that a man who is eligible for both disablement and service pensions under the existing regulations is only awarded the larger pension in full and one-half of the other, he will consider amending the regulations so that a man will receive the full amount of both disablement and service pensions to which he is separately entitled?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Head lam): The present method of combining the service and disablement elements in these cases was determined after very full and careful consideration, and is common to the three fighting Services. I regret that I am unable to entertain the suggestion that it should be modified.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why a man should not draw two pensions if he has earned two pensions, one for service and one to compensate him for his disablement'?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The system is infinitely more favourable now than it was before the War. A Committee has gone very carefully into the whole matter, and it was decided, in view of the fact that the pensions are considerably larger than before the War, that this would be the fairest way of doing it.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is not an ex-service man, on the final determination of his degree of disability, entitled to the full amount of pension both for disablement and for service?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think that in certain cases that is so, hut I should like further notice of that question.

Mr. ROBINSON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of ratings, and the percentage to the total strength, invalided out of the Navy in each of the years ending December, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925,
1926, 1927 and 1928; and the number in each year that were granted disability pensions?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As the reply is in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


Year.
Number Invalided.
Percentage to total strength.
Number awarded disability pensions.


1922
2,028
2
379


1923
1,474
1.6
322


1924
1,330
1.5
543


1925
1.517
1.7
522


1926
1,726
1.9
561


1927
1,342
1.5
442


1928
1,242
1.3
402

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the desirability of making the marriage allowance payable to married ratings above the age of 21?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The present age limit rule was carefully considered when marriage allowance was instituted. It has been reviewed on many occasions since, and I am not prepared to recommend any alteration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of the investigations as to why they limit the age above 21?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should have to look up the report of the Committee, but I will endeavour to do so.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that they can get this marriage allowance at 25?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, the age is 25 in the Navy.

ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to announce any decision with regard to a pension or superannuation fund for captains and officers oft the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, especially in view of the low
pay in this service compared to that in well-managed private shipping lines under the British flag; and if he is aware that, in addition to the pension and superannuation schemes in force in nearly all other Government Departments, many of the good private shipping companies on the British register have pension funds for their captains and officers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce any decision with regard to a pension or superannuation fund for captains and officers of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service. The matter is one of considerable difficulty, involving considerations of some complexity, but it is anticipated that a satisfactory solution will soon be reached. The rates of pay in this Service are in accordance with the agreements arrived at on the National Maritime Board. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very unfortunate that the Admiralty should lag behind private employers? Should not they rather set an example to private employers? What is the difficulty in coming to a decision?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have said I hope a satisfactory decision will soon be reached. So I do.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he answered a question in practically the same terms a year ago, and that three years have elapsed since he received a deputation of all the officers' organisations, including the engineers, and promised a sympathetic consideration to their representations?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that there has been this delay, and I hope a satisfactory arrangement will be come to.

WELFARE REQUEST.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a reply can now be given to General Request, No. 15, of the 1922 Welfare Conference?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Admiralty Fleet Order No. 496, dated 29th February, 1924, intimated that this Request had
been fully considered and that it was regretted that it had not been found possible to accede to it.

OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).

Sir B. FALLE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what rates of Income Tax were charged on the income of naval officers for the financial year 1915–16?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The incomes of naval officers for the financial year 1915–16 were charged with Income Tax at the same rates as those of taxpayers generally, except that incomes from naval sources below £160 a year were exempt and incomes from naval sources exceeding £160 and not exceeding £300 a year were charged at 9d. in the £ on the excess over £160 per annum.

Sir B. FALLE: Does that mean that the higher incomes were not considered earned?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the arrangement was rather better for the Navy than it was for ordinary persons.

Sir B. FALLE: That does not answer the question whether the salary is going to be considered earned or not earned.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid I do not understand my hon. Friend's question. The point was that the Income Tax deduction was rather more favourable to the Navy than to civilians and that all incomes are treated in the same way.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed miners have now arrived in London to take up temporary employment at the Royal parks; how many are married men: whether their wives and families accompany them; what arrangements were made for housing accommodation; and how long the work upon which they areengaged will last?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The number of men from the depressed areas now in employment in the Royal parks is 420, of whom 260 are married. No dependants of these men have so far removed. Lodg-
ings were found in advance for the men through Employment Exchange machinery. The work itself will last about 12 weeks but it does not follow that the engagement of individual men will last so long. The men are expected to make every effort to secure more permanent employment, and the married men will be assisted to find accommodation and to remove their families under the special financial arrangements announced in the Press on January 17th.

Mr. MORRISON: Are there any special financial arrangements to enable men who are here by themselves, as their families are still in the depressed areas, to keep two homes going?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That raises a different question. I should not like to say without examination. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question or communicate with me.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable, instead of bringing married men from de pressed areas, to bring single men?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are already very large numbers of unemployed men in London, and has his attention been called to the remarks of two London magistrates about the tragedy of bringing men from one depressed area to another?

Mr. TOWNEND: What facilities are provided for married men to return home, and at whose expense are they enabled to do so?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not contemplated that they should return home during the 12 weeks. The contemplation was that they should be able to find work as employment improved during the first months of the spring which will enable them permanently to get occupation outside the depressed areas.

Mr. MORRISON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is very considerably extending the scope of the question.

Mr. KELLY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women and juveniles who have been placed in em-
ployment in the London area under the transference of labour scheme which deals with unemployment in the mining districts; and how many of these transfers were assisted from the Lord Mayor's Fund?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The numbers of direct transfers through the Employment Exchanges from the depressed areas to employment in the Greater London area are:
Men (since end of August), about 3,700.
Juveniles (since 17th February, 1928), about 800.
No separate figures of the number of women transferred to London are available. No part of the cost of fares has been borne by the Lord Mayor's Fund, but some 310 boys have received a grant in aid of maintenance from the fund.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether the grant of maintenance from the Lord Mayor's Fund for the 800 boys is a weekly sum paid to them for lodgings or because their wages are low?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to be precisely accurate on the matter, and perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

Mr. THURTLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has under consideration any plans for providing useful employment for any considerable number of the existing unemployed; and, if so, will he specify what these plans are?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. In the opinion of the Government the only really satisfactory method of reducing the number of unemployed is by re-absorption into industry, and not by the artificial creation of work. The general policy of the Government—of which the De-rating proposals are one example—is therefore directed to the removal of obstacles to the revival of industry. In so far as employment is not likely to be available for the unemployed In the future in their own trades or industries, arrangements for training and transfer are being developed to the utmost practicable extent. Since August, over 11,000 men, women and boys have been thus transferred by the Ministry of Labour, besides those who
have moved on their own accord, and the rate of transfer is increasing. At the same time certain facilities for obtaining Government grants remain available in aid of relief works set up by local authorities in areas of exceptional unemployment.

Mr. THOMAS: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House any figures as to the number of people displaced in the industry into which these people have been put?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the right hon. Gentleman will specify exactly what he means I will try to get him any figures that are available. I am not sure what exactly is the point which he wishes to raise.

Mr. THOMAS: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department has any knowledge of the number of people displaced in the particular industries in which these people, who have been trained for other work, (have already found employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: AS far as I am aware, no statistics exist as to the number of people displaced, nor have we reason to believe that numbers of persons are displaced. What is quite clear is that we are training people in some employments in which there is a need for workers who are not easily obtained at the moment, and in every case it must be quite clear that you cannot have instructional factories and yet be debarred from instructing the men in any occupation.

Mr. THURTLE: Arising out of the original answer, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister whether he is seeking to emulate a gentleman named Nero?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that there are tens of thousands of unemployed men in London—men who were in London—and that these men are displaced by those who have been brought in to do work in the public parks?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer is "No."

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that there are tens of thousands of unskilled workers out of employment in London available for relief work in the public
parks, to which the right hon. Gentleman's Department is transferring men from other districts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer is quite clear. The work in question would not have been set in hand at all had it not been for the policy of transfer, and for that reason no persons are displaced.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why that or similar work could not be put in hand in order that the unemployed men of London may get a chance of work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Schemes of various kinds have, I believe, already been set up.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is untrue.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he persists in carrying his schemes to a successful conclusion, and if he reduces substantially the number of unemployed, he will ruin the chances of the Socialist party at the General Election?

DOCK LABOURERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the great volume of unemployment continuing amongst dock labourers, he is now prepared to reexamine the system of unemployment relief for casual workers in view of the unfair way in which this works out in many cases; if he is aware, for example, that man who works three half-days in a week only is entitled to no unemployment benefit and only draws 18s. pay, whereas if he is unsuccessful in securing three half-days' work and has a wife and five children he draws 34s. unemployment relief, and that it is in consequence a temptation to a man who has. for example, signed on Wednesday and Thursday and worked half a day on Friday and Saturday, not to take a half-day's work that offers on the Monday so that he can then draw the benefit; and if he is aware that if dockers only had to sign once a day, like men in other trades, much trouble would be saved and the employment insurance funds would benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think that the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. If a man
works three half-days only in a given week, he may receive benefit for the remaining three days on which he did not work. I do not understand how the unemployment fund would benefit if dockers had to sign only once a day. The requirement of two attendances a day, in force at certain ports, is considered essential in order to secure adequate evidence of unemployment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now, after experience of this system, it is a fact that the willing workers, the best of the men, are often penalised, and it is a great temptation to the slacker men to take advantage of the scheme? Is be aware that that is where the saving will take place, and also that men will have a better opportunity of seeking work if they have not to attend twice a day at the Exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I am not aware of that, unless the hon. and gallant Member means that people are taking advantage of unemployment benefit who ought not to be allowed to do so. I think he is under a misapprehension, but, if he will communicate with me, I shall be glad to go into it with him.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what happens is that a man who, if he gets another half-day's work will actually lose, stands at the edge of the crowd and does not catch the foreman's; eye, and that sort of thing?

AGED WORKERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that by a recent decision given by the umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Acts an unemployed person ceases to be entitled to unemployment benefit when he or she reaches the age of 65 whether or not that person is qualified for the old age pension; can he give the approximate number of persons who are affected by this decision; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?

Mr. MALONE: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the umpire's decision No. 3223/28, has constituted a definite and final ruling that men and women are not entitled to receive any unem-
ployment benefit on reaching the age of 65, even if they may not be qualified to draw the old age pension; and, if so whether he will take steps to introduce measures to remove this disqualification?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Umpire's decision in question merely affirmed the provisions of Section 37 (1) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, 1925, which enact that unemployment benefit is not payable to persons of the age of 65 or over. I have no statistics showing how many unemployed persons of this age, who were previously insured against unemployment, are not eligible for an old age pension but I have no reason to think that they can be more than a very few.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was it the intention of the Minister and his draftsmen that, when a person was not entitled to his old age pension, he should be left stranded without other benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I personally was not responsible for the drafting of the old Age Pensions Act, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to raise the point, I will consider it with my right hon. Friend who brought it in. It is a point which will need legislation in the case of any Amending Act.

Mr. MALONE: Is it made any better whether there are few or many suffering, and would it not be better to remove the hardship instead of paying £400,000 to the brewers?

MINERS (STAMP QUALIFICATION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that at no time during the last two years have less than 200,000 miners been wholly or temporarily unemployed; and if he can give an estimate of the number of miners who are unable to fulfil the 30 stamps qualification or will be unable on 19th April?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not able to make such an estimate. Although it is true that the number on the registers, except at one date, has not fallen below 200,000, this total includes those temporarily stopped, and the balance is largely made up of different individuals at different dates.

Mr. WELLOCK: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to decide the general point if he does not form an estimate?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already stated that I am making inquiries.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not necessary to get an estimate? Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to get an estimate in a typical case like that of the miners?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have 6aid that I am making inquiries into the whole question, but, whether it will be possible to classify the information according to particular industries, I cannot say.

Mr. PALING: Are we to assume that if the number of unemployed colliers proves to be very large, some amelioration will be given to them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member must not make any assumption before the results are obtained.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Member aware that there is almost universal approval in the country for a continuance of the present transition arrangement, and can he not make a statement quickly on the matter in order to dispel the apprehensions which prevail?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I believe there is apprehension, but the apprehension is largely exaggerated, and I would ask hon. Members, as they doubtless would be willing, to help me by dispelling the exaggeration.

Mr. BATEY: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour an estimate of the number of miners in Durham County whose unemployment benefit will cease in April, 1929, as a result of the 30 stamps qualification?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not yet in possession of information which would enable me to make the estimate referred to.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking the information?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

Mr. BATEY: And you will let us have it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, but I cannot tell the hon. Member when I shall
be able to obtain it. At the present moment I can give only a rough guess as to the inclusive number, and I hesitate to give it to the hon. Member because he may rely upon it.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information has been asked for for months now? Can he tell us when he is likely to get it?

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. TOWNEND: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, respectively, who have been refused benefit at the Stockport Employment Exchange for the last 12 weeks on the ground of not genuinely seeking work; the number, respectively, who have appealed; and the number, respectively, who were successful on appeal?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the three months ended 14th January, 1929, 58 applications for unemployment benefit by men and 252 by women made at the Stockport Employment Exchange were disallowed by the insurance officer on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking work. I am unable to state how many of these applicants appealed against the decisions. In addition 30 claims by men and 18 by women were recommended for disallowance on the same ground by the Court of Referees on review after 78 days' benefit had been paid within the preceding six months.

Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet made up his mind what is meant by the phrase "genuinely seeking work"?

Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not possible to get the information as to the number of appeals to the referees?

Sir A, STEEL-MAITLAND: I could give the hon. Member the number of appeals for the area for which the Court of Referees sits, but not for each district within that area.

Mr. LEE: Is there an appeal if a man is cut off after 78 days?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are appeals within certain conditions, particulars of which I can give to the hon Member.

Mr. TOWNEND: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the information respecting the Stockport area from the Stockport Employment Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not without undue trouble.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. Members that we are getting on very slowly with the questions upon the Paper.

Mr. STEPHEN: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, for the four weeks ended 10th December, 1928, the percentage of disallowances by insurance officers is much higher than in the previous year; and if, in view of the greater amount of unemployment and consequent difficulty in finding work, he will advise his officers that, in every case where there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the applicant for benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the end of 1928 the insurance officers dealt with large numbers of cases which a year previously would have been dealt with by rota committees; the proportions of disallowances by insurance officers in the two periods are therefore not comparable. In any event, I could not issue the instructions which the hon. Member suggests, since I should thereby be attempting, most improperly, to influence the decisions on claims to benefit.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the fact that the insurance officer is dealing with these cases a reason why the right hon. Gentleman should instruct his officers to give the benefit of the doubt? Why should the benefit of the doubt be against the men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly not.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole trouble in the different districts is the interpretation of what is meant by "genuinely seeking work"? Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular or give an answer in this House defining what is "genuinely seeking work"?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already dealt with that question in detail. If the hon. Member wishes, I can give him the Umpire's decision on the point.

Mr. OLIVER: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue instructions that, in cases where unemployed men are charged with an offence arising independently of the receipt of unemployment benefit, such persons shall not be deprived of their benefit by local officials of the Ministry until they have been found guilty of the offence for which they are charged by the Court?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Local officials of the Ministry are not empowered to disallow claims for benefit. If they are aware of circumstances which throw doubt on a claimant's title to benefit they must refer the matter to the chief insurance officer who would have regard to such of the facts as might have a bearing on the conditions for the receipt of benefit.

Mr. OLIVER: What right has an insurance officer to institute an inquiry in a case where a man is to be brought before a competent Court who will have to decide whether or not he has been guilty of a felony? What right has an officer of the Ministry of Labour to say that such a man is guilty before the Court has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has misunderstood the facts of the case. What is desired by hon. Members opposite is that a decision shall be given with as little delay as possible, and it is right for an insurance officer to try to deal with the case as quickly as possible. If he does so, he has to take all relevant considerations into account, and he cannot keep out of his mind any circumstances arising out of another case.

Mr. OLIVER: I am afraid the Minister of Labour has not got the essence of the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Is the Minister aware that in this particular case the man was charged with an offence quite distinct from any benefit he was receiving from the Ministry of Labour, and that before there was an opportunity of going before the competent Court his benefit was stopped? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can justify such conduct on the part of any of his officers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member refers to a particular case. He does not refer to any particular case in his question, and I know of no particular
case. If he has any particular case of this nature in his mind, perhaps he will communicate with me about it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of that reply—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting on very slowly with Questions.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the action of the Derby Employment Exchange in stopping unemployment insurance benefit to two fitters named Herbert and Smedley, because they were unable to pay for medical certificates of fitness for employment in the Army Ordnance Depot at Aldershot; and whether he will cause full inquiry to be made into the case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiry made into these cases and will let the right hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. BATEY: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed miners in the County of Durham whose insurance benefit has been stopped during the last 12 months?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. KELLY: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women who were denied unemployment insurance benefit at the Rochdale Employment Ex change during 1928 on the point of not genuinely seeking work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Complete statistics of the disallowace of claims to unemployment benefit made at the Rochdale Employment Exchange are available only from the 19th April, 1928. Between that date and 14th January, 1929, 265 claims made at that exchange by men and 383 by women were disallowed by insurance officers on the ground that the claimants were not genuinely seeking work. In addition, 81 claims by men and 42 by women were recommended for disallowance on the same ground by Courts of Referees on review after 78 days' benefit had been paid during the preceding six months.

Mr. KELLY: Were the people who were refused benefit by the insurance officer informed that they had the right of appeal to the Court of Referees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think so, but, if the hon. Member wishes, I will look into the matter, or if he will put down a question I will give him an answer.

WREXHAM AND DISTRICT.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of miners were unemployed in Wrexham and district during the months of October, November, and December, 1928; whether any miners have been transferred to other districts owing to unemployment; and, if there were no unemployed miners, whether any application was made to the Employment Exchange to procure miners from other coal areas?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The numbers of insured workpeople classified as belonging to the coal mining industry recorded as unemployed at the Wrexham Exchange were 223 at 22nd Octoher, 1928, 225 at 26th November, 1928, and 229 at 17th December, 1928. Wrexham is not regarded as a depressed area for the purpose of the Industrial Transference Scheme. A number of coal mining vacancies for special classes of workers not available locally have been notified to the Wrexham Exchange. Some of these vacancies have been filled by men brought forward from other areas and further transfers are being arranged.

Mr. YOUNG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what special class of miners are required for Wrexham?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not an expert in mining, like some hon. Members opposite, but? am told—

Mr. BUCHANAN: You might make yourself an expert at your job. [Inter ruption.]

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manager of the Gresford Colliery, Wrexham, quite recently stated that he required 300 colliers? Can the right hon. Gentleman account, therefore, for the number of unemployed colliers registering at the Wrexham Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer, as far as I am aware, is that a particular kind of miner is required because of the difference of seams in different places. I speak subject to reservation, but I undertand that,
according to the nature of the seam and the nature of the employment, one kind of collier from one district is more experienced than a collier from another district.

Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this situation is being taken advantage of to deprive men of benefit in other districts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of that fact.

BENEFIT CLAIMS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the application of Mr. John Twist, of Parkfield Terrace, Haydock, for unemployment benefit was in order when made at the Employment Exchange at St. Helens, Lancashire, why the claim was referred to London, and why there has been delay in arriving at a decision?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that inquiries in this case have not yet been completed. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. YOUNG: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to expedite these cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am expediting every one of these inquiries as fast as I can. The number of inquiries is very considerable ax the present time, the amount of sickness among the officials is very great, and the consequence is that beyond a certain degree I cannot press them further.

Mr. YOUNG: Even making allowances for sickness among the officials, does it take, on the average, 10 to 12 weeks to decide a question of this kind?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly not. On the average that is not the case, by any manner of means. There are sometimes exceptional cases and exceptional difficulty, and those cases take, longer than others.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the decision given on 7th December as to the right of inquiry into incomes of relatives of applicants for unemployment benefit was given by the deputy umpire; and if, in view of the importance of the
said decision, he will allow a further appeal to the chief umpire?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the right of appeal does not depend on any permission to be given by me; in accordance with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the decision of a deputy-umpire is final and conclusive.

GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of unemployment benefit paid in November and December, respectively, through the exchanges in the Glasgow area; and the greatest number of applicants in receipt of benefit during these two months?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Unemployment benefit paid direct to applicants through Employment Exchanges in the Glasgow area during November and December, 1928, amounted to £151,000 and £ 124,000 respectively; the month of November contained five weekly pay days. The greatest number of applicants with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration at these exchanges during the period was 38,617 at 10th December, 1928.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that at present a large number of persons in Glasgow have to wait from four to eight weeks before receiving the results of the chief insurance officer's investigations into their cases; and if he will take steps, in view of the hardship involved, to have the decisions made in a shorter time?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of such delays, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any individual cases I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

COURTS OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that since the operation of the new Unemployment Insurance Act persons who are to appear before Courts of Referees in Glasgow are summoned from the Edinburgh office instead of Glasgow, thus causing delay in notification, and often little time for persons involved to consult trade union
officials; and if he will take steps to have the former practice restored?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that the present arrangement involves delay or inconvenience to appellants generally, but I shall be glad to go into any specific cases if the hon. Member will give me particulars.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that insurance officers have gone there from Edinburgh to try these cases, and that other insurance officers are sent from Glasgow to Greenock to hear cases? Would it not be better to return to the old system, under which Glasgow had local autonomy in dealing with its affairs?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. As far as insurance officers and officials are concerned, the inconvenience is not such as to warrant a change back. If the hon. Member has any evidence in regard to claimants being inconvenienced, I should be glad to hear it in regard to any case.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most claimants only receive notice- the night before the claim is to be heard I Does he think that that is sufficient notice to give them as opportunity to turn up at the Court of Referees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member says that most claimants only receive notification the night before the case is to be heard, and he will give me particulars which substantiate his case, I will inquire into it.

INSURABLE EMPLOYMENT (SNOW CLEARING).

Mr. KELLY: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour why his Department has issued a Circular stating that men engaged on work such as snow clearing must not have their insurance cards stamped, as this work is not recognised as employment for the purpose of unemployment insurance?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Acts, employment by a local or other public authority in the removing of snow in or about any streets or other public places is not insurable unless the person so employed is otherwise ordinarily employed by the authority to whom the service is rendered. The
Department's local officers were recently reminded of this fact in view of misunderstandings which occurred last winter.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is this discrimination; why a person who happens to be employed by a contractor for a fortnight prior to this work is allowed to be considered as insured while a man who is taken on for the purpose is denied the right of insurance?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question is whether the work in question forms part and parcel of a general contract and engagement which comes under the Employment Insurance Act?

Mr. THOMAS: Is it not much better to encourage people to do work of any kind whatever rather than induce them not to offer their services?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman, but that does not affect this question.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether it is the opinion of the Department that the cleansing of the streets of our cities is not insurable employment?

DISTRESSED AREAS (RELIEF).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA asked: 45.
the Prime Minister if he can make a statement as to the present position in the distressed areas; and whether he is satisfied that provision is being made that all districts suffering from exceptional distress, which cannot be alleviated from their own resources, are participating in the scheme of relief?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply which I gave on Monday last to questions by the hon. Members for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey), which, I think, answers his question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are there not a large number of workers, not miners, who have been suffering poverty for a considerable time? There are a number of dockyard workers who have been out of work for years. Is no consideration to be given to them at all?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member is referring to the Lord Mayor's Fund, that is for mining areas and those within those areas, and it cannot be applied to areas which are not mining areas.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Why is Newcastle-on-Tyne, which is in the heart of a coalfield with six collieries and eighteen thousand unemployed, not scheduled as a distressed area and not to participate in this fund?

Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member is misinformed.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister to which Minister questions should be addressed relative to decisions by courts of referees and the umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Act?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Questions relating to the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts should be addressed to the Minister of Labour. In framing questions, however, relating to Courts of Referees and the Umpire, hon. Members will no doubt bear in mind that Parliament has deliberately placed their decision outside Ministerial control.

Mr. STEPHEN: Since they are outside the control of the Minister of Labour is there to be no Minister responsible to the House of Commons for the actions of these men? Does the Prime Minister mean that the only way in which we can deal with injustices is by putting down a Motion in this House for their dismissal?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of the umpires was placed outside the jurisdiction of Ministers by this House, and the only way in which it can be altered is by an alteration of the Act or by putting down a Motion in this House for the removal of an umpire in the same way as is done in the case of a Judge.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As the question also covers the Court of Referees, may I ask whether, as they are outside the control of this House, we are to be debarred from putting questions concerning their actions? Will the Prime Minister still consider the advisability of allowing questions to be put in re-
gard to the actions of the Court of Referees, or are they to be still on the same footing as the Judiciary?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of some parts of that question. I have answered the question on the Paper, and perhaps the best course at the moment is for hon. Members to put such questions as they think fit, and they will be answered if possible.

Mr. MACLEAN: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot spend too much time on each question.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why are not questions answered properly?

HOURS CONVENTION.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour when the governing body of the International Labour Organisation meets in March to consider the draft Report on the Hours Convention prepared by the office, the British Government representatives present the detailed proposals on the particular points on which the British Government desire revision; and whether he will arrange to circulate these proposals to foreign Governments at the earliest moment in order that their representatives may have exact knowledge of Great Britain's proposals when the draft Report is discussed in March?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The terms of the statement to be made on this occasion are still under consideration. In reaching their decision His Majesty's Government will take account of all the factors affecting the situation.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some danger of losing the advantages of this Convention by delay on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. The question is coming up in any case at the beginning of March next, and it is not a question of any delay or not before that date.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will not the ratification of the Washington Convention destroy the safeguarding proposals of the Government?

CALENDAR.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the United States of America and Hungary have set up national committees to consider the simplification of the calendar; whether His Majesty's Government will also do so; whether the Government is prepared to call an international Conference for this purpose or accept an invitation on behalf of this country should any other nation call such a Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the movement for the simplification of the calendar should be left to private effort for the present. It is not yet ripe for Government action either by way of the appointment of a national Committee or by taking the initiative in calling an international Conference. If we receive an invitation to such a Conference from any other nation we will, of course, consider the question of sending a representative.

COKE OVEN PLANTS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider what assistance and encouragement it can give towards creating an amalgamation of the coking interests in Durham and Northumberland, in order that the present numbers of coking plants may be largely reduced and inefficient plants replaced?

The PRIME MINISTER: The National Fuel and Power Committee in their Report (Cmd. 3201) issued in September last recommended that the coke oven owners should in many cases consider plans for reorganising their coke oven plants into installations serving a number of collieries and equipped with a modern type of oven. This recommendation has been communicated to the National Association of Coke and By-Product Plant Owners for such action as they may think expedient. The grouping of coke ovens will no doubt be facilitated by amalgamations and the provisions of Section 55 of the Finance Act, 1927, for giving relief from capital and transfer stamp duty in cases of reconstruction or
amalgamations of companies will, of course, be of assistance in appropriate cases.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the owners take no action, what will the Government do?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the owners are extremely likely to take action.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has it not been proved to the Prime Minister that hitherto the owners have been lacking in response to these appeals?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do happen to know that a good many schemes are at present under consideration, and I think they can be carried out better in that way than by the Government.

SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1928.
Last year we had a Bill which dealt with the regulation of shop hours. That Bill was confined to the principle of compulsory closing of shops, and did not in any sense cover the question of limiting the hours of shop assistants to a reasonable extent. I am glad to see the Home Secretary in his place because he, more than anybody else, is directly responsible for Parliament having missed an opportunity last year of dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman, with that stubbornness and pride which distinguish him, absolutely refused to allow his own Departmental Committee, even to consider the "pros and cons" of the question of limiting the hours of shop workers. I have ceased to be surprised at anything which the right hon. Gentleman does, but I must confess to a keen sense of disappointment at his attitude on this matter. I am sure that his Leader who, last year, placed the mantle of Joshua upon the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders, will be equally disappointed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Elijah?

Mr. TAYLOR: No, Joshua. If I understand the meaning of "Joshua" aright, it means "deliverer" or "saviour," but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been either a deliverer or a saviour to the tens of thousands of overworked
young women employed in the shops of this country. It was due to him that an opportunity was missed of having this question considered. Perhaps the Prime Minister was not thinking of the right hon. Gentleman in the role of Joshua the Israelite, but was thinking more particularly of the right hon. Gentleman in the role of "Joshua the night light." But if the right hon. Gentleman is to be judged by his political fulminations, "Joshua the never right" would be much nearer the mark than Joshua the Israelite.
In 1926 we had a number of inquiries tinder the Trades Boards Act into the distributive trades of this country. Inquiries into the drapery, catering and retail grocery trades indicated that a considerable minority, particularly in the grocery and catering trades were suffering from excessive hours of labour. In the drapery trades no less than 27 per cent. of the males employed, and 12 per cent. of the females employed, were working over 50 hours a week. In the catering trade 44 per cent. of the male workers and 26 per cent. of the females were working over 50 hours a week and 7 per cent. of the females were working over 56 hours a week. In the retail grocery trade 62 per cent. of male workers and 67 per cent. of female workers were working over 50 hours a week and no less than 26 per cent. or one in four of the female employes were working over 54 hours a week. With that evidence before him the right hon. Gentleman might have been more (sympathetic to the representations made to him when he set up the Departmental Committee, but if that evidence were not sufficient to convince him of the necessity for new legislation and a legal limitation of hours, surely the evidence placed before his own Departmental Committee ought to have converted him. That evidence showed hours ranging in some cases as high as 70 per week for female employes and shops open in some cases from 80 to 100 hours a week. At the present time there is no legal limitation of hours of labour except that contained in Section 2 of the Shops Act 1912, under which young persons under the age of 18 are not to be employed for more than 74 hours a week inclusive of meal time, and that contained in the Shops Act of 1913 which restricts hours in the catering trade to not more than 65 inclusive
of meal times. I hope in view of the large number of children and young women concerned the House will grant leave for the introduction of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Riley, Miss Bondfield, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. David Grenfell, Miss Wilkinson, Mr. Wilfrid Paling, and Mr. Mackinder.

SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL,

"to amend the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1928," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 13th February, and to be printed. [Bill 42.)

CORONERS.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Coroners Acts, 1887 to 1926.
Last year I asked for leave to bring in a similar Bill and the House was good enough to grant it. I do not intend to go over the ground again, but I wish to remind the House of the present position of the law. Under the Coroners Act of 1887 it is the duty of the coroner's court and jury to inquire into who the deceased was, how, when and where the deceased came by his death, and, if it be murder or manslaughter, the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter. Then the coroner if. to issue a warrant for the arrest of the person or persons found guilty by the jury. That position was amended by Section 20 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, which provides:
(1) If on an inquest touching a death the Coroner is informed before the jury have given their verdict that some person has been charged before examining justices with the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of the deceased, ho shall, in the absence of reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest until after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and may if he thinks fit discharge the jury.
(2) After the conclusion of the criminal proceedings the Coroner may…resume the adjourned inquest if he. is of opinion that there is sufficient cause to do so;
Provided that, if in the course of the criminal proceedings any person has been charged on inquisition shall charge that person with an offence of which he could have been convicted on the indictment.
The position, therefore, is that where a coroner's court is assembled and a person has been arrested and brought before the magistrates, the coroner must. unless he has good reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest. If a person is Charged on an indictment and then acquitted at the Assize Court, the coroner's jury cannot bring in a verdict against that person; but if a charge has been dismissed by the magistrate—if the magistrates have found that there is no prima facie against the accused—then the coroner can reassemble the Court and jury and, in those circumstances, find a verdict of manslaughter or murder against the per son whose case has been dismissed by the magistrates.
4.0 p.m.
A case was tried last week, on 24th January, in the Oxford Circuit by Mr. Justice Roche. The case was a charge of manslaughter of a boy named Herbert. The accused was a groom named Simpson, who was out one day shooting crows, and accidently shot and killed the boy. A coroner's court was held and adjourned, pending the hearing of the charge against simpson before the magistrates. The case was thoroughly gone into by the magistrates, who, having heard the evidence, dismissed the charge against Simpson, finding that there was no prima facie case. The coroner's court then reassembled and the coroner's jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against Simpson, who was committed on the coroner's warrant to take his trial at the Oxfordshire Assizes. It appears that on the Oxford Circuit there is a practice that whenever a man is committed for trial upon a coroner's warrant, only a bill of indictment is presented to the Grand Jury. Mr. Justice Roche, in his charge to the Grand Jury said:
The matter that gave rise to the charge was that a boy named Herbert was shot dead, and there" was no question that accused was the person who shot him. What happened with regard to the legal proceedings was that first of all the inquest had begun, and very naturally and certainly quite properly the Coroner thought fit to adjourn the proceedings until the magistrates had dealt with the case. The magistrates having heard the case very thoroughly, thought there was no ground for a committal. They thought it was a case of pure accident, and dismissed it. The matter had then gone back to the Coroner, who had to finish his inquest. The Coroner and the Coroner's jury, notwithstanding the determination of the magis-
trates, took a different view. They took a view, which was based upon a view of the facts, that there was criminal negligence.
The learned judge went on to say:
Of course, it is a very important matter, because it is a very considerable thing for any person, and particularly a young person, to stand in that dock at all. And if the magistrates were right that this was a case of accident, and you feel that accused ought not to stand in this dock, I am going to ask you to consider the matter in detail and make up your minds whether a true bill ought to be returned or not. If you think that the view of the magistrates is right, return 'No bill'
The learned judge expressed the view that there was really no case for manslaughter, and the Grand Jury then threw out the bill. Notwithstanding that, the accused had still to be placed in the dock. The prosecutor offered no evidence, and the petty jury returned a verdict of "not guilty," the proceedings being formal. The position was this. There were 18 witnesses involved in the case, brought there at great expense to the country. The Grand Jury had to find whether there was a True Bill or not, and, as far as the accused himself was concerned, not only was he placed in the dock—a very serious position, as the learned judge pointed out—but he. had to bear the expense of his whole defence, including solicitor and counsel, when he had already been acquitted by the magistrates. Clearly, I submit, that is a, position which is not only illogical but very unjust, and I ask the leave of the House to bring in a Bill to amend the law accordingly.

Question, put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morris, Mr. Atkinson, Captain O'Connor, Mr. Ramsden, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Paling, and Mr. Thurtle.

CORONERS BILL,

"to amend the Coroners Acts, 1887 to 1926,"presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 29th January.]

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Captain BOURNF in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 111.—(Power to remove difficulties.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first three Amendments on the Paper, two in the name of the hon. And learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst)—in page 03, to leave out from the word "area" in line 2, to the word "the" in line 4, and to leave out from the word "expedient" in line 6, to the end of line 10—and one in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser)—in page 93, line 5, to leave out the words "or do any other thing"—seem to me to raise analogous though not identical points, and I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the discussion of all three Amendments simultaneously, reserving the right to go to a Division on each one separately, if the Committee so desire.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 93, to leave out from the word "area," in line 2, to the word "the" in line 4.
This Amendment raises what is a really important constitutional issue, because the effect of Clause 111 is to delegate the sovereign powers of legislation to a Government department. It is perfectly true that that delegation is for a limited period, and is for a definite ambit of legislation, but the fact remains that it is another illustration of the modern tendency of Parliament to delegate its own powers of legislation, and to put such powers into the hands of what, in effect, is simply a Government Department. I should like to put such observations as I can to the Committee under three heads. First of all, I should like to say something to show that that is the true meaning of Clause 111 as it now stands. Secondly, I should like to make some observations as to the principle which is raised by this delegation. My third point really is to attempt to elicit from the Minister whether the circumstances of this Bill are so cogent as
to necessitate the adoption of what, I submit, is a bad principle with regard to the delegation of Parliamentary powers to one Minister.
My Amendment leaves untouched the powers of the Minister to take exceptional action in what are there denned as exceptional areas. My Amendment touches those areas which are not exceptional, that is to say, normal areas. The true construction of Clause 111 is that for no less than nine months, from 1st April, 1930, until 31st December, 1930, the Minister can, without any reference to Parliament, ex post facto suspend, if he thinks fit, the operation of any of the provisions of this Bill, and can vary its provisions in any way that he thinks necessary and expedient. Those are very wide powers. The result is that the powers which this Clause places in the Minister of Health are powers of legislation for nine months, although in any such case there has been no previous reference to Parliament, and ex hypothesi such decisions as he may arrive at are decisions contrary, I do not say in the spirit, but certainly in the letter, to what Parliament has previously enacted. Therefore, the first point I make is that the effect of Clause 111 in its present form is to give the Minister of Health power to legislate within a definite area for a definite period, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has legislated to the contrary in this year, and that power is to be in his hands for nine months during the year 1930.
My second point is that this is prima facie a bad principle. Let it he granted that we have every confidence in the Minister of Health. Let it be granted that we have the best Civil Service in the world, and that the Minister's advisers at the Ministry of Health will exercise their discretion on absolutely right grounds. Let it be granted that in recent years there are precedents for what this Clause seeks to do—there have been several precedents in the last few years to this effect. Making all those concessions, the fact remains that this Bill in its present form seeks to give effect to a power of suspension and dispensation which has been illegal in this country since the Bill of Rights, and which it seems unnecessary to re-enact in
these days for the benefit of a Government department. A great many critics much more competent than I am have spoken in a hostile spirit upon this growing tendency of Parliament largely to extend the powers of Government departments, but this is the largest of all executive powers. It is a power to legislate, in fact, because it is a power to override the provisions of an Act of Parliament.
I, personally, do not move this Amendment in any spirit antagonistic to the main proposals of the Government, but I think many Members on this side would like to elicit from the Minister what it is in this particular Bill that makes it wise and necessary to give these large functions to the Minister of Health. One recognises that in exceptional areas this may be very rightly deemed wise and necessary, but here, I imagine, the reason why the appointed day is put as far forward as 1st April, 1930, is that in the intervening period preparations can be adequately made to cope with the emergencies that may arise in that period. If it is necessary to make Amendments in the scheme, it is quite competent for Parliament to postpone the appointed day if need be, but, having regard to the fixing of the appointed day so far ahead, there seems good reason for not once again invoking this principle of supplanting the action of Parliament by the action of a Government Department.
The Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) provides that before a regulation of this kind becomes operative, it shall have the specific sanction of both Houses of Parliament. That, to a large extent, I think, would remove the theoretical objection which many of us feel to the Clause in its present form. In its present form it does seem to me to be following a recent bad tradition, and I move this Amendment in the hope of eliciting from the Minister such an explanation as will satisfy many supporters on this side— supporters on broad lines of this Bill, who have their doubts with regard to the principle involved in this Clause. I hope he will be able to satisfy us that this departure from sound constitutional principle in this Clause is a wise one.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: As you, Captain Bourne, have already intimated, the Amendment which I have put down to this Clause, and the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend, may be conveniently discussed as a matter of principle together. The principle which we wish to bring before the Committee, and which we think and hope—at any rate, I think and hope— the Committee will be of opinion, when they have heard everything that has been said, is one of the most vital importance to the whole principle of government, is this: This Clause, which we seek to amend by taking out of it at least the most vicious part, although I think the whole Clause is vicious, is called in the margin, "Power to remove difficulties." We shall be told by the right hon. Gentleman that a similar Section has crept into other Acts of Parliament, but if that be so, it is about time that we put a stop to this very vicious practice, and I think that argument, at any rate, will not prevail with the Committee.
There used to be an excellent custom in the 17th and, I think, the 18th centuries that Clauses were read out to the House by the Clerk, but that system has now been abandoned, and I propose, in order to explain what this Amendment does, to read out what this Clause does, because it is drawn in a very artful manner. That is to say, the more innocent part of the Clause comes first, for it begins by saying:
If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area,
certain things may happen, and the casual reader stopping there may think that this is merely a piece of machinery for dealing with an exceptional case, but no; this is a case where the general follows the particular, whether from design or not I do not know. It goes on:
or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
With that, the thing goes far beyond the question of the application to an exceptional area, and we then get this position.:
If any difficulty arises…in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
It is not quite clear who is to decide that difficulty, but I think it is the Minister, because it goes on to say:
The Minister may by order remove the difficulty.
I do not know what difficulty they are contemplating, whether it is a legal difficulty, whether it is my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) who is to be removed under this Clause, or what the Minister has in mind, but whatever the difficulty be, be it legal, moral, or physical, he has power to remove it by order. It goes on:
or make any appointment,
and then come the particular words which I am seeking in my Amendment to delete from this extraordinary Clause:
or do any other thing,
which seem to be words of generality giving the Minister power to do anything which is possible to mortal man in this world. To test it in this way, if he does any other thing, and the subject, when he goes to the Law Courts, says, "This was beyond the powers of the Minister," the Minister might very well say, as I think on the authorities he would be right in saying, "The Act gives me power to do any other thing, and whatever I do, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts to say that it is beyond my power."
Any other thing, which appears to him necessary or expedient, for bringing the said provisions into operation.
There, we think that the real effect of this Clause is to enable the Minister, not necessarily the right hon. Gentleman, but whoever may occupy his seat at the Ministry of Health, whenever he thinks that he wants to bring into operation any of the provisions of this Act, and he is met with what he believes to be a difficulty, to do anything he likes to modify the provisions of the Act so far as may appear to him necessary or expedient. In these circumstances, was not the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Gerald Hurst) perfectly right when he said that the effect of this Clause would be to reintroduce into this country the dispensing power?
If I may draw another historical analogy, this Clause reminds me of a Statute of his late blessed Majesty Henry VIII, which was called the Statute of Declarations. King Henry VIII, who was always wise enough not to offend the Legislature, acquired absolute and supreme power in this realm by putting
through Parliament a Bill which said that thereafter anything which was enacted by him, or by Order-in-Council, should have the force of law. May I suggest for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues upon that bench that really our Sessions would be greatly shortened and our work greatly lightened if one comprehensive Bill were introduced at the beginning of the Session saying that any Minister, to remove any difficulty, might do any other thing which seemed to him necessary or expedient? That really is the effect of this legislation, and, while I cannot admire the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this Clause, I do admire his courage, because I remember that last year, when we suspected him of an attempt to break another fundamental principle of our Constitution, in the matter of the judiciary, although in this House I regret to say, his views prevailed, in another place his wings were clipped. I do not want to threaten this Committee with what may happen hereafter, but his wings were clipped once, and they may be clipped again, and so long as they are clipped, it does not matter to me whether they are clipped here or anywhere else.
If the Government would take off the Whips on this Clause, I do not believe that they would get 30 Members of the party opposite, and certainly no Member of the parties on this side, to support this particular proposal, which is simply giving to the Government complete power, for a limited period of time, it is true, but during that limited period of time up to the 31st December, 1930, to put into this Bill, to take out of this Bill, to make appointments, to make Orders, to do anything which the Minister, whoever he may be, may think necessary or expedient. Great as is the confidence that I have in my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side who will probably be Ministers before the end of that period, I would not like to trust even them with this power It is too much power to give to anybody. It is the privilege of Parliament to legislate, not the privilege of the Executive, and people here and outside are constantly calling attention to the fact that this Legislature is giving to the Executive power after power which ought to be kept in the hands of Parliament itself.
If Parliament is prepared to part with this privilege of saying what shall and what shall not be in an Act, I say that all legislation in the future really becomes quite vain.
The matter is more serious for this reason, that in Clause 109 we have already given to the Minister power to vary the necessary Orders made to carry out this Bill. It is no good the Minister telling us that certain parts of this Bill involve machinery which means legislation by way of Orders. Clause 109 gives powers, I think too great, to modify those Orders, and we wish to know, if Clause 109 gives ordinary machinery of legislation by Order, what is the need for Clause 111, which goes much further? There is one other point. We shall no doubt be told that we have failed to look at Sub-section (2), which says:
Every order made under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
The Committee know very well that a provision of that sort, unaccompanied by any restrictive provision that the Order shall not take effect until Parliament has so decided, as is indeed the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), is valueless from the point of view of controlling the Executive. The matter is discussed in "Erskine May," who says, speaking of the various kinds of Orders which are to be laid before Parliament:
In the simplest case there is only an obligation to lay the rules, etc., upon the Table of each House, although in some of these cases there is in addition, a prohibition against the authority taking any action upon the rule for a prescribed period of time.
I want to know, even if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in satisfying the Committee that it is necessary that Parliament should give him these enormous and unrestricted powers, why it is that the obligation to lay the Orders before Parliament is not accompanied at any rate by this provision that an Order shall not operate until Parliament has sanctioned it, because the Committee will notice that, as the Clause is drafted, even that small and belated protection is completely lacking.
I do not want to repeat; I will merely summarise. My Amendment would be at least to leave out from this unrestricted
power the right to do any other thing which the Minister may deem necessary or expedient. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side would restrict all the powers, as I understand it, except in the case of the exceptional areas, and there is yet another Amendment, by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham, to say that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained; but, if I may say so, the best Amendment of all, that which I think would come nearest our hearts and bosoms, is the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), to leave out the Clause altogether. If that is too much to hope for, I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us that he is conscious that there is a real feeling, not confined to any particular part of the Committee, on this matter, and that he will give us some assurance that he will curtail the demand which he is making on us now. I cannot sit down without calling attention to the fact that all these Amendments are moved, I think, by students or practitioners of the law. It is a matter of pride to us that the lawyers in this House are the guardians of our liberties.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The attack which has just been made upon the Clause by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is, as is so frequently the case with him, made entirely upon theoretical and academic grounds. He and the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Gerald Hurst), who also finds fault with a Clause of this character, have skated very lightly over the fact that there are numerous precedents for a Clause of this kind, and I shall have at least to quote to the Committee some of these precedents in order to show that what we are proposing to do in this Clause has behind it a great weight of examples from other Acts of Parliament passed by this or preceding Governments. But it is not merely because of our precedents for this Clause that I mention the matter on this Amendment, but because, if this Clause really were open to the sort of abuses which the hon. and learned Member has so eloquently described, surely he would have been able to bring before us at least one single instance where this power had been wrongly used. He has not been able to find a single instance, in spite of the fact that I can
quote him six Acts since 1888 in which a similar Section has been inserted, where Parliament has not thought it necessary to raise the slightest shadow of complaint. That is really the strongest answer, I submit, to the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and until he can show that this Clause has really brought about the sort of abuses which he has suggested, there is the thinnest sort of defence for his observations.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has objected particularly to the words "do any other thing." He did read most of the Clause to the Committee, but he did omit, or he did at any rate make such pauses between the different sections of the Clause that he brought out, as to bring himself very much under the suspicion of that artfulness of which he accused the Government in regard to this Clause. After all, the Minister is not given power to do anything which he pleases. The things which he may -do are the things which are necessary or expedient to bring into operation the provisions of the Act, not to bring into operation any other provisions. He can only exercise his powers in order to bring into operation the provisions of the Act. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is open to him to use his own discretion and judgment as to what is necessary and expedient. I agree that it is, but I would remind him that his action is always subject to review by Parliament owing to the fact that he has to lay his Order on the Table, and an Address can be presented to His Majesty within 21 days against the Order.
The hon. and learned Member asked why the Bill does not say that an Order shall not become operative until Parliament has positively approved it, but he does not attempt to visualise the sort of circumstances that would make this Clause desirable or necessary. They are circumstances of urgency. Something might happen to prevent some provision of the Act coming into operation; there might be a deadlock and something must be done at once. You could not wait until Parliament has passed a resolution; Parliament might not be in Session at the time. The only thing to do is to remove the difficulty at once, and, if the Minister removes it in a way that does not really and properly come within the words of the Clause, Parliament has a
remedy, and can pull up the Minister for his action. This is not a new thing, and I must read to the Committee one or two extracts in order that they may see what has been done before. The first is from the Local Government Act, 1888—a very long time ago. Section 108 says:
If…any difficulty arises as respects the holding of the first election of county councillors or as to the first meeting of a provisional council, the local government board may by order appoint a returning officer or other officer, and do any matter or thing which appears to them necessary for the proper holding of the first election.
"Which appears to him necessary" are precisely the same words as in this Clause.

Sir H. SLESSER: Are any words like "may modify the provisions of this Act" anywhere?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Member is a little previous, for I had not finished my extract. It goes on:
Any such order may modify the provisions of this Act…so far as may appear to the Board necessary.
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his interruption. The Local Government Act, 1894, Section SO, says:
If any difficulty arises with respect to the holding of the first parish meeting of a rural parish…the county council may by order make any appointment or do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for the proper holding of any such meeting…Any such order may modify the provisions of this Act…so far as may appear to the county councils necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.
The National Insurance Act, 1911, Section 78, says:
If any difficulty arises…in bringing into operation this Part of this Act, the Insurance Commissioners…may by order make any appointment and do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient…for bringing this Part of this Act into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.
In view of the sort of attack that has been made, I want the Committee to understand that this is not a new provision, but an old and constantly repeated provision which has not given rise to any difficulty. The same sort of thing is to be found in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, and in more recent Acts, such as the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age
Contributory Pensions Act, and the Rating and Valuation Act. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side did not see any objection to the Clause so far as it refers to exceptional areas. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds will agree with him there, for he wants the Clause out root and branch, or teeth and branch to use a modern phrase.
I must point out that there may be exceptional cases which are not exceptional areas. There are a number of places in the Act where it is provided that certain things must be done by a certain time or within a certain time. It is quite possible that for some reason, which at present I am not prepared to state, the things may not be done within the statutory time, but is the whole business of the Act to break down on that account? Surely there must be some provision which will prevent the only alternative, which would be to bring in an amending Bill. If we are to come back to Parliament for an amending Bill every time there is a temporary breakdown, owing to some circumstances that could not have been foreseen at the time the Act was passed, Parliament would be spending a very large part of its time quite unnecessarily in dealing with matters which really do not contravene any of the intentions of Parliament, but merely postpone for a short time, in view of the exceptional circumstances, the actual operation of the Act.
There are a number of cases of local Acts in different parts of the country, and you cannot put into a Bill of this length, complex and difficult as it is already, provisions to deal with the exceptional cases of every one of these local Acts, some of which are very likely hardly even known in my Department, but this Clause will give us the opportunity of making some temporary provision to cover them. There is one area in the North of England where the duty of maintaining the highways and bridges devolves upon the inhabitants of a lordship, and rates can be levied for that purpose. That is the sort of thing which we may come up against in the course of the working of this Bill, and it is to remove difficulties of that kind that the Clause is introduced. I hope that I have shown the
Committee that in the provision we have before us we are only following the example of many Governments and many Acts before us, and I can confidently say that there has never arisen a case, where a Clause of this kind has had to be put into operation, where Parliament has found any reason to complain of the Minister who put it into operation. In view of these circumstances, I submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is altogether going beyond the actual practical facts of the case. and that there is no reason to accept the Amendment.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the kind of things that were done under the enabling Clauses in the Acts which he has quoted in order to show the sort of thing that is contemplated here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not in my head the particular instances in which they were put into operation. There were very few instances, but there were some, and I could get the information for my right hon. Friend.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman leaves me gasping. He has not attempted for a moment to justify the Clause, and he quotes precedents which are wholly inadequate. Two of the precedents which he gave were cases where the old Local Government Board took powers similar to these to deal with specific things, namely, elections. The Acts of 1888 and 1894 solely gave the Minister of Health power to deal with difficulties which arise in connection with elections. Every one of these bad precedents which he has quoted were Ministry of Health Acts. Apparently, the other Departments of State do not find it necessary to put what I would call this laziness Clause into the Bill. The Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office, and the Home Office can manage to draft their Bills watertight, and put them before the House in a condition in which the House can deal with them. It is only the Ministry of Health which requires to put in all their Acts this Clause enabling the Minister of Health to reverse decisions come to by Parliament. Under this Clause, the Minister of Health is entitled, for two years, to alter this Bill. We have spent 12 days on the Bill in Committee alone discussing it, hardly amending it, but still
altering it in some details, and yet for the next two years the Ministry of Health can amend what Parliament has passed. I think the right hon. Gentleman was badly coached when he answered the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) and said that he did not know where these powers had been used.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that. I said that I could not give the details of any instances in which they had been used.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is exactly what the Committee is entitled to have. If this thing has precedents, let us know what the bureaucracy has made of it. It is not merely a question of what use they can make of it, but what use they have made of it, that ought to guide the Committee how to vote on this question. I agree that the Ministry may not have done anything under his Clause; it is possible that they put the Clause in just as one puts salt into stew. The people who draft these Bills say: "Let us put this Clause in; it has been in before, and it may be useful." But has it ever been useful? Has it ever been used before, or is it put in because of the laziness of the officials of the Ministry in not being able to draft a Bill that can be put into operation? Parliament ought not to abrogate its powers in this way.
Let me give an illustration of the difficulty that may arise. The Government may find that this Bill is too expensive, and that it costs too much money, like the Corn Production Act, which was passed solemnly for a period of years, and then repealed after a year and a half. They may find that the Bill is giving too much, and that the gift to the agricultural landlords, for instance, is excessive, but for two years we can alter that. I hope we may. There may be a political difficulty. Suppose a new Government comes into power which is not intimately connected with the brewing trade, and not anxious to relieve the brewers of their rates. That would be a difficulty not financial, but political. Will the new Minister of Health be empowered under this Clause up to the end of 1930 to alter the Act of Parliament, and relieve the brewing industry of the benefits of the Measure?
It is not left to the Minister to say whether a thing is just, but merely to say whether it is expedient. When an alteration is made, it is not merely made up to the end of 1930, but for all times. The limitation in this Clause is that the Minister can make an Order only within two years, but once it is made it endures. The right hon. Gentleman points out that it is always possible, if the House wishes to protest against an Order made under this strange Clause, to move an Address to the Crown opposing it; but is it? As far as I remember, when a Government in power passes one of these ordinances, it is hopeless for the Opposition to attempt to carry an Address to the Crown against the Order. That may seem to the right hon. Gentleman to be a very amusing matter so far as this Parliament is concerned, but we may not always be in opposition, and it will be their turn then. When we make our Orders modifying the provisions of this Act, the Opposition then, like the Opposition now, will be unable to counter them.
My fundamental objection to this Clause is that it is a concession by Parliament to the bureaucracy. In this Bill we talk of the Minister, we see him before us, and we think of him as the devil of the piece; but we know that he really is not. We know that he is merely the brocaded porter at the entrance to the cinema, that the picture palace is behind, and that there are the people who, concealed behind the term "the Minister," are being given powers to override Parliament. This is an age when the bureaucracy are constantly grasping more and more power, becoming more and more dictatorial. We not only get autocrats and dictators in the South of Europe, but we invest our permanent officials with all the powers of a dictator, though without the title. In this Clause we are giving them a small additional power over the democracy, over this unfortunate people, enabling them by an omnibus Clause to do what they will when they will, provided that there is a Minister in charge docile enough to do what they wish.

Sir L. SCOTT: It seems to me that some Clause of this kind is necessary, but as a lawyer I approach it with grave misgivings. With the general principles expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East
Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) on the opposite side of the House I agree. I think it is vital to the liberty of this country that legislative powers should be reserved for this House, or only delegated to any other authority or any other person within the narrowest possible limits, and those limits ought to be clearly defined. On the other hand we are presented in this Bill—and it may well be that it is so in most Bills dealing with the question of local government in an old-established civilisation like ours— with complexities and difficulties of a kind which it is quite impossible for Parliament completely to cover in advance, and it is just because of those complexities in matters of detail, points which we have not thought of in this House, points which will prevent the legislation working in accordance with our intention if there are no means provided for dealing with them, that a Clause of this kind is occasionally necessary for this limited and exceptional purpose. I would like the Minister to see whether, between now and the Report stage, he cannot alter the wording of this Clause a little so as to attain what I believe to be the real object of the Clause, whilst at the same time avoiding the dangers of which many of us are so conscious.
The object of the Clause is not to enable the Minister to alter the provisions of the Bill, though the language of the Clause seems to permit that. The object is to preserve the provisions of the Bill and to enable him, when he comes to work them out, to see that the intention of Parliament is not defeated. The first two lines of the Clause are undoubtedly protecting lines, well calculated to prevent the occurrence of the kind of danger we fear, and it seems to me that that principle might be followed out a little more completely throughout the rest of the Clause. The first point to observe in the Clause is this:
If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act.
It is not with the Act, but with the application of it. Secondly, it is not concerned with the application of it generally and in all circumstances, but only in an exceptional area which is subsequently defined. Then it says further:
or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
Not altering them, but bringing them into operation, making the provision which we have enacted effective. The Clause goes on to say that he may
by Order remove the difficulty or make any appointment, or do any other thing.
Let us pause there for, a moment. If the difficulty arises in connection with one or other of these matters then he may by Order remove the difficulty. The provision should, as it seems to me, go towards removing the difficulty by doing this or that; it should not say "remove the difficulty" or do various things. That word "or" at once separates the powers thereafter conferred from the conditions contained in the first two or three lines. That is one suggestion I make to him.
The other point is this. If there is a real difficulty I feel that he ought to be given the power to remove it in so far as it is a difficulty in bringing the Act into operation, but to make him the final and exclusive judge of whether there is a difficulty, or whether what he thinks desirable in order to remove it is really desirable, is to give him rather a wide discretion. The discretion conferred is a discretion subject to no appeal at all, in no event. I suggest to him that he might consider whether it would not be possible to allow a local authority affected by any Order made under this Clause some form of appeal on the question of whether there was a difficulty or whether the method adopted by the Minister was necessary or expedient. If something of that kind could be done, and, possibly, certain further limiting words were introduced to define a little more closely the extent to which the Minister may exercise these very autocratic powers then I, for one, would welcome that addition.
From the very fact that the Minister has put in previous precedents in support of this Clause we are obviously dealing here with a Clause which may itself become a precedent in the future, and it is the danger of precedents of that kind which always alarms me. Each precedent may go a little further than the last, and we may ultimately and gradually get into what, quite candidly, seems to me to be a very bad habit in legislating. We ought to retain as much control over legislation as is practically possible. This Clause, as it stands, seems to me to be open to the criticism that it is not
quite as clear as it ought to be, not quite as limited as it ought to be, and that it does not contain certain safeguards by way of appeal which might be put into it. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider the suggestions which have been advanced.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: From the speech, amongst others, of the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) the Minister will realise that the opposition to this Clause is not dictated by any desire to hurt his Bill, but by a real jealousy of the powers of this House, and by a growing suspicion of the powers of the executive as they encroach upon our ancient liberty. For that reason the principle embodied in this Clause must be granted to be a bad one. Necessities may arise which may drive one in this direction, but at the same time one ought not to go further than is absolutely necessary. But, if the principle be bad, the remedy by way of an Address is bad also, and it has been pointed out from the benches above the Gangway that it is a remedy which is not likely to be exercised. I am not making any party point about mechanical majorities, all majorities are somewhat mechanical, and some minorities as well, but any party when faced by a fait accompli, by something which had been put into operation by the Minister, would be extremely reluctant to vote an Address which would be in effect a vote of censure on what he had done. It would be different if the procedure suggested in another Amendment were adopted, because if Parliament were consulted before the thing had come into force there would be time for the feelings of the supporters of the Minister to become known and the Order might be withdrawn without any great loss of dignity.
We are not trying to guard against any blatant and obvious acts of tyranny. We are thankful to think that whatever party be in power, acts of that kind are rare. It is only an act like that which would be likely to call forth the remedy of an Address. What we are afraid of are gradual and subtle encroachments done with no desire to infringe upon the powers of Parliament—just here a little and there a little power passing from the legislature and going to the executive. If the principle be bad and if the
remedy be bad, I think the precedents are also bad, because here in this Bill we are dealing to a large extent with a tremendous unchartered country. It is because the Bill is so wide in extent, and because its provisions go so very deep into local government, that we have to be so careful as to what additional powers are granted. Even while we are discussing this Clause we have no idea of what action the Minister might be led to take under it. The precedents quoted were, as far as I remember, precedents in connection with Bills of a more limited scope, and therefore we are confronted with something which ought to give pause to everybody in the House, and I hope, if the Committee are going to be asked to vote for this Clause, they will have some assurance from the Treasury Bench that further consideration will be given to it between now and the Report stage.

5.0 p.m.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: I want to make a practical suggestion which I hope may meet some of the difficulties which have been expressed from all sides of the House. There are certain points on which, I think, we are all agreed. The first is that some Clause of this kind is necessary. We have the assurance of the Minister that difficulties may arise and may have to be met in some such way as is proposed. The second point is that there are precedents, almost word for word, for such a Clause as this. On the other hand, looking at this matter not pedantically, I believe, but from the point of view which I think all lawyers ought fairly to take, that is, that they are to some extent the guardians of the old constitutional principles, we ought not to outrage those principles more than is necessary in order to deal with a practical difficulty. We have had quite enough, indeed too much of this kind of thing. I would not call this Clause an astute one. I would rather wish to find a word which would be more Parliamentary, but I cannot find a better one than barefaced. It is obviously declaring that we are to give the Minister a dispensing power over Acts of Parliament. We thought we had got rid of all that in the time of James II, and I do not want to see in any Act of Parliament a declaration that the constitutional principles which were established in
1688 are overridden. What the Minister desires can be achieved without outraging these constitutional principles, and I have jotted down something which I humbly submit for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not profess to be a Parliamentary draftsman; but I suggest these words as a means of overcoming this difficulty, which is not merely a pedantic and theoretical difficulty, but rather the important matter that we should not go further in the way of bringing about what I call an unconscious revolution. The words I propose are;
If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such Order for removing the difficulty and bringing the Act into operation as may be necessary for that purpose.
That would be a declaration that any Order which is made is made for the express purpose of doing what Parliament wants to have done and it would enable the Minister to make Orders in these exceptional cases for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: On reading this Clause first, I was inclined to be of the opinion which has been so forcibly expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). But, on reconsideration, and after hearing this Debate, I have modified my views a great deal, and I am rather inclined to support the Clause as it stands. In fact, in my view, it gives rather less power to the Minister than is proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson). I share to the full the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds. I detest the idea of giving any enlarged powers to any Minister, which really means the exercise of these powers by Departments behind closed doors without the full light of public opinion upon them; but it seems to be common ground that some general power must be given to the Minister for getting the Act to work. The reason why I have modified my opinion is that the powers given to the Minister in the Bill seem to be hedged in in the strictest possible way, because the exercise of them is limited to a particular class of
case. Difficulties must arise in certain cases and in exceptional areas, and it is the object of the Clause to apply the provisions of the Act to such cases. The power of the Minister is limited expressly to that provision, and, if he attempts to go outside that provision, the Law Courts have the full power to declare this Order null and void. That is the first class of case, and the same argument is equally applicable to the second class of case.
If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
It must be a difficulty in regard to coming into operation, not as to the provisions or the working of the provisions of this Act.

Sir H. SLESSER: Will my hon. and learned Friend inform the Committee what, in his opinion, is the meaning of the phrase, "If any difficulty arises"? What sort of difficulty has he in mind? It seems to me to be quite indefinite.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am not prepared to give instances; but the sort of difficulty which is referred to might arise in cases where there are special Acts, or special customs, where the application of this Act might come into conflict with some other Statute.

Sir H. SLESSER: Then why should that not be stated in this Clause? My difficulty is that it is not limited to anything exceptional, but seems to apply to something more that exceptional cases.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: It would be something in the nature of a technical difficulty. I suggest to the hon. Member for the English Universities that his proposed words would give the Minister greater powers than are given by the strictly limited words in the Clause. Under Clause 109, Sub-section (3), any Order that is made has to be laid on the Table of the House, and it will be open to any Member of this or the other House within 21 days to move that it be not approved. I suggest that, for every practical purpose, there is complete control over the Minister in this way. I think, therefore, the liberty of the subject is very well guarded, and that that principle, which I support just as strongly as my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment, is effectively preserved.

Mr. RYE: I do not know if the Minister will consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities; but I think it would do away with a good deal of the grievance that is felt by certain Members of this House as to this Clause. Whether it follows precedent or does not, it enables the Minister, in fact, to amend and repeal an Act of Parliament or any portion of that Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health says that there are at least six Acts of Parliament at the present time which contain somewhat similar provisions, and that no harm has arisen out of these provisions. Personally I am not particularly impressed with this argument, for it seems to me that if I am so foolish as to leave my house uninsured for six years there is no reason why I should continue uninsured and so run the risk of disaster. It may very well be that in the past this House passed similar Clauses. If so, then it is clear that we sacrificed a great principle when precedents such as were created were allowed. I think the time has come when this House should definitely say that, when an Act of Parliament has been passed, there should be no alteration in that Act by any Minister, but that the Act can only be amended in the usual way by repeal, or by amending legislation.
The real issue is whether we are to continue to sacrifice rights which we possess. Are we going to spend our time day after day debating Bills and discussing Clauses in Committee, and, after assisting to put Bills on the Statute Book, ought we to leave a loophole for a Minister at his own free will to alter those Acts of Parliament in such a manner as he may think fit? Under those circumstances, we might as well shut up the House of Commons. We attend this House in order to debate, discuss, and frame Measures before they become Acts of Parliament, and, if we insert a Clause enabling Ministers to alter those Acts, we might as well stay away altogether. The Minister of Health has expressed his fears as to certain difficulties that may arise under this proposal, but I do not share those fears. The Minister of Health is a man of great ability; he has behind him officials possessing exceptional abilities, and they
must have spent a great deal of time considering the Clauses of this Bill.
I took the trouble this morning to go through this Measure up to Clause 54, and I found that ample power was reserved for the Minister upon 18 different occasions. Certain powers were also reserved to the Minister of Transport in connection with the roads. It is difficult to find any Clause in this Bill which does not give some power to the Minister. I should think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension if he thinks that any trouble will arise or that many alterations will have to be made, for there cannot be many matters which are not covered by the wide powers which are given to the Minister. Those of us who are members of the legal profession are sometimes looked down upon with contempt, but we feel that we are now dealing with a great constitutional question, and I believe I am right when I say that the Members of the Law Society view with some apprehension this particular Clause. I hope the Minister of Health will consider very carefully the suggestion which has been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson).

Commander WILLIAMS: The Debate on this Clause seems to me quite typical of what takes place when those hon. Members taking part in the discussion belong to the legal profession. It is easy to find all sorts of technicalities to speak upon, and we have had some very interesting speeches upon this Clause. For sheer unadulterated Toryism I think this House has seldom listened to anything more Tory than the criticisms which have been made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). A well known Member of the legal profession stated that he did not understand what an exceptional area meant. That is a point which does not need a great deal of imagination. When you see new towns springing up it is obvious that difficulties may arise under this Act which may need exceptional treatment, quite apart from what is already provided for under this Bill.
Many minor difficulties may arise in dealing with the various Clauses specifying boundaries, and those applying to
finance and the setting up of Committees. Cases may arise which have not been provided for but they can be dealt with by the Minister and his officials in a perfectly simple and easy way. We have been told that Sub-section (2) of this Bill is ineffective and will never be used. That may be so, but this is not the occasion to try and make the procedure of the House either effective or otherwise. The proper way to deal with matters of that sort would be by a party conference in agreement with the Speaker. What we are now discussing is merely a formula to be found in other Acts of Parliament. We do not go beyond that formula, and what is suggested does not constitute a breach of the prerogatives of this House.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): We have had a very interesting discussion, and I am sure hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the time devoted to this question has been well spent. I am aware that what is proposed seems to be opposed to a constitutional principle and against the law as we know it. The Minister of Health has already stated that this Amendment raises questions which have arisen on a number of very important Measures which have been passed by this House. The real reason why we need such a Clause in a number of statutes is that you may have difficulties of a technical character arise under the Bill when it becomes an Act, such as we know have already arisen under the National Insurance Act and the Widows' and Orphans' Contributory Pensions Act. There must be certain circumstances arise either in connection with the administration or with any obvious defect in the drafting of a Clause, where it would be ludicrous to suggest that in order to carry out the intentions of Parliament and to bring the Act into operation the Minister should not have an opportunity by issuing an Order which would be subject to review by this House to put that matter right rather than have to go to the trouble of promoting a Bill which might take a very long time indeed.
I remember the difficulties which arose when the National Insurance Act was before the House of Commons in connection with the deposit contributors. Upon that occasion, some technical difficulty
arose, and, in order to place some particular benefits at the disposal of deposit contributors, power was given to the Minister to issue an Order to remedy what was an obvious difficulty in the Bill-Similar circumstancess arose in the administration of the Widows' Pensions Act, and it was doubtful whether certain insured persons came within the phraseology of a certain section of that Measure. In order to put the matter right immediately, and in order to secure that. those insured (persons should have the full benefit which was intended by Parliament, an Order was made in pursuance of a Section in the Act which follows the lines of the Clause which we have inserted in this Bill. We are now discussing an obvious difficulty which ought to be put right at once, and the course we have taken follows out the intentions of Parliament. Any Order which may be issued can be immediately challenged if hon. Members think anything wrong has been done. It is in order to overcome that difficulty that we have introduced this Clause, which appears in so many other Acts of Parliament. A case might arise in which a person would not be able to comply with the Act within the stipulated period, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that under such cir cumstances the Minister should not be able to put that matter right.

Mr. MACKINDER: The fame difficulty has arisen in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act in the case of people who reach 65 years of age.

Sir K. WOOD: I am suggesting that it would be ridiculous in the case I have mentioned to promote a Bill to put that matter right. I have read the discussion which took place upon the National Health Insurance Bill in 1911 when a Clause in the same phraseology as the one we are discussing was supported by hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) seems to take an extreme view upon this question, but I think he goes a little too far. This is a matter about which the House should be careful, but I think that, legislating, as we are, in 1929, we must have a provision of this kind in order to meet a sudden emergency which may arise when we are simply following out the enactment of Parliament itself. I submit to the Committee that it has been found use-
ful, and that there has never been any case of its abuse.

Major PRICE: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that the only difficulties which can be removed under this provision are technical and administrative difficulties, and no others?

Sir K. WOOD: No; I am simply giving illustrations such as occur to me. If the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities will refer to the Report, he will see the exact case to which I have referred, and he will find that, unless this Clause had been in operation, a large number of insured people would have had to wait to get their benefits until the whole apparatus of a Parliamentary Bill had been put into operation.

Sir H. SLESSER: This Clause, if any difficulty arises, gives power, as we should expect, to remove the difficulty, but it also says that, if any difficulty arises, the Minister, by order, may not only remove the difficulty, but may also do other things. The Clause gives him power to do things which do not arise. If any difficulty arises, he may remove the difficulty, and he may also make any appointment or do any other thing which appears to him necessary or expedient. Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain to us why, in addition to the power to remove a difficulty, there is also the power to make appointments or do other things?

Sir K. WOOD: It is not only that. The Clause says:
If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act,
the Minister may do certain things. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to complete my observation, because I think it will meet their point. My right hon. Friend has heard the suggestions and criticisms which have been made in various quarters of the Committee in reference to this Clause, and he will, between now and the Report stage, consider those suggestions and any others that any hon. Member may care to make to him. with a view to amending this Clause if he is satisfied that it is necessary in order to bring it more into conformity with what we all desire, namely that some provision should be made to meet such an emer-
geney or difficulty; at the same time, quite rightly, reserving to Parliament its rights and privileges of which we are quite properly jealous. If any hon. Member likes to make any suggestion in this direction between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider it, and will then review the drafting of the Clause in the light of this discussion and of any suggestions that may be made. The discussion has at any rate served a useful purpose, and it is, of course, the desire of my right hon. Friend to meet, so far as he can, the wishes that have been expressed.

Sir H. SLESSER: The Parliamentary Secretary has just given an interpretation of this Clause which reopens the matter in a very serious aspect. I should like to ask why, in addition to removing any difficulty that arises, the Minister is to have power to make any appointment or do any other thing which appears to him necessary or expedient. The second limb of the Clause does not, as I understand it, deal with any difficulty, but says:
in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
The whole case of the Minister of Health was that the words
If any difficulty arises
governed both things, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary is right, it means that, in connection with the bringing into operation of the provisions of the Act, he can do all of these things even when a difficulty has not arisen. I do not think that that is the. meaning; I think that the Minister is right, and that the words, "If any difficulty arises," do govern both the application of the Act to an exceptional area and the case of a difficulty in bringing into operation any of the provisions of the Act. But, even if that be so, as I believe it is, the question still arises that the Minister can not only remove the difficulty, but can make appointments and do other things. Surely it is sufficient if the difficulty is removed, and the whole value of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) was that his Amendment limited the power specifically to dealing with the difficulty as such, and took away these general powers, and also took away what is even more serious, though nothing has been
said to deal with it, namely, the power to alter an Act of Parliament by a subsequent Order of the Minister. That cannot be defended on any ground.
The Government will be given sufficient powers if they accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, and I think myself that, if that suggestion receives serious consideration between now and the Report stage, we might be content with the discussion that we have had. I hope, however, that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take this matter very seriously; it is not a frivolous matter or a pet theory of my own. No one who has spoken in this discussion, with the exception of one of my hon. and learned Friends—and I confess that, although I followed his assumptions, I cannot follow his conclusions—who has not condemned the Clause as it stands. It admittedly gives more power than is necessary; it gives power to do things, when difficulties arise, other than the removal of the difficulties. Admittedly it gives power by a Ministerial Order to amend an existing Act of Parliament. No one can take these powers lightly, or say that to object to them is a pet theory or a fad or anything of that sort. This matter is not theoretical; it is practical and actual. The precedents quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary deal with specific matters, like the alteration of boundaries. The only case that he made is the worst of all, namely, that of the National Health Insurance Act. That Act was the root of all evil in this matter, because it was the first Measure, introduced into the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), which gave the Government unlimited powers to do what they liked by Order. Before that, the House had been very jealous of that power, and I attribute the whole of this bureaucratic legislation to that Act. At that time no one was more opposed to that Measure, on this very ground, than those who are now called the Conservative party. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) twitted me with being a Conservative. I cannot repeat the compliment; he is a very dangerous and despotic bureaucrat.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K.
Griffith) said that the complication of local government and the deep-rooted character of its nature were an argument in favour of not giving the Minister these extensive powers. I should have thought that common sense dictated the very opposite, and that the very complexity of local government, and the deep-rooted character of its nature, make it necessary to give these powers to deal with exceptional cases. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Bye) suggested that the Ministry of Health knew of all the exceptional eases in the country. The Ministry of Health have very extensive knowledge, but surely it is assuming a very great deal to imagine that there are no survivals which have not been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Health—

Mr. RYE: I never suggested that there were no difficulties; what I suggested was that they are mainly covered by the provisions of the Bill in which powers are reserved to the Ministry, and that any other cases, where powers are not so reserved, can be dealt with in the ordinary constitutional way by an amending Act.

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member had allowed me to continue my sentence, I was going to explain that there is a number of survivals mostly of that nature. The Minister of Health quoted one to-day, a survival from mediaeval days, which is not covered by any of the other provisions to which the hon. Member for Loughborough referred, and I am very glad to notice that the Minister considers that this would be a proper subject to be dealt with under this Clause. If it were not, it would be impossible, in the particular area concerned, to carry out the obvious intention of Parliament, and it would be necessary to go through the cumbrous procedure of passing a special Act to deal with a small area, with the possibility that such special Act could not be passed by the time that the main Act comes into operation. It is in order to meet these survivals, which are not by any means unique, but of which there may quite conceivably be a large number in the course of the next six months, that I think this Clause is essential.

Mr. WITHERS: The Minister having stated that he is going to consider this matter between now and the Report stage, there is really nothing more to be
said. I was particularly asked, however, by the Law Society to bring to the notice of the Minister this question of modifying an Act of Parliament by Order, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has had a communication from that body on the subject. All the arguments which have been brought forward in favour of including this Clause in the Act would apply to all other Acts. It is said that it is necessary because the matter is intricate, but, as a matter of fact, the mere general an Act of Parliament the more difficult of application it is, and therefore there is really no reason why, if the Clause be included in this Act, a standing Clause of this kind should not be put into every Act. That is a really dangerous constitutional position.
With deference, I would ask the Minister to consider the question of constitutional usage in these Bills that he brings forward. I do not want to refer to unpleasant incidents which have occurred in the past, but would draw attention to the attitude that he took up on the Eating and Valuation Bill with regard to application to the Court ex parte by the Minister. He assured us here that the position was covered by various precedents, and they were read out, and the Whips were put on against us and the Clause was passed in the teeth of our opposition. When, however, it went to another place, the right view was put forward, and without the slightest hesitation the Clause was turned down by everyone. Therefore, I would ask Ministers, who are supposed to be jealous of our privileges, really to consider, before they put in Clauses of this kind, which might just as well be put into every Act of Parliament. While I am very pleased indeed that the Minister is going to consider the matter further, I hope he will decide very much to modify this particular Clause.

Major PRICE: I would ask the Committee not to be led away by the argument brought forward to refute this Amendment, that, because no advantage had been taken of this power, no advantage ever would be taken of it. There is no definition at all of what is a difficulty. The arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary were directed to the kind of technical and administrative difficulties which he says the Clause is intended to remove. We can all realise
that in a Bill of this complexity there must be administrative and technical difficulties and special cases which have to be met, but surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to devise words which would confine the Minister's powers to those difficulties which are likely to arise. Here the Minister is given power to amend any Act if he finds a difficulty of any sort in carrying it into force, and that is such a wide power that the House of Commons should jealously prevent its being put into the hands of any Minister. It is for that reason that one feels that this Clause goes beyond any precedent that has ever happened. Precedents have an extraordinary way of broadening as they come down the line, until a precedent will be established under which you will get a Clause which enables the general principle of an Act to be put into force and then a power for the Minister to do what he pleases in carrying the Act out. This comes very near it. The Clause says:
If any difficulty arises.
The only qualifying words are:
Bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
One can imagine hundreds of difficulties which could arise, and the Minister has to say whether they are difficulties or not. There is no power for us to go to the Courts for a definition of a difficulty. The only power that is given to the whole of the country or to this House is such power as may be contained in Subsection (2). I am certain the Minister can, if he will, find a way out of the difficulty and confine his powers to constitutional powers and none other.

Mr. HURST: Having regard to the very welcome assurance of the Minister that the Clause will be reconsidered before the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 93, line 5, to leave out the words "or do any other thing."
I move this formally in order to ask that the Minister will consider the matter between now and the Report stage. I understood him to say he would.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understood the sense of the Committee generally—I am not expressing the exact meaning
of every individual Member who spoke—the necessity for some such Clause as this is appreciated. A number of hon. Members have thought the drafting of the Clause was not altogether fortunate, and that it gives the Minister wider powers than he himself intended to assume. I, myself, see that the Clause might be drafted in a somewhat different way, and my right hon. Friend and I have undertaken that we will examine the drafting

of the Clause again, and see if we cannot amend it in such a way as to make clearer what the intentions are, and in that way remove some of the doubts and apprehensions which hon. Members have expressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 125.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[5.49 p.m.


Albery. Irving James
Ellis, R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Frece, Sir Waiter de
Nelson, Sir Frank


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Berry, Sir George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis


Bethel, A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Oakley, T.


Betterton, Henry B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Brass, Captain W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briggs, J. Harold
Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harland, A.
Preston, William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Brown, Brig-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, Sir Walter


Buckingham. Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon Sir S. J. G
Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Salmon, Major l.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. univ.)
Horne, Rt. Hon Sir Robert S.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandon, Lord


Christle, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Haliam)


Cope, Major Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Couper, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lamb, J. O.
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester. Crewe)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Loder, J. de V.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank. Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon, G. F.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Luce, Ma)or-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies. Dr. Vernon
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Gien
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dean, Arthur Weliesley
Macintyre, l.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Drewe, C.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexandtr M.
Tinne, J. A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Waddington, R.
Williams, Corp C. (Devon, Torquay)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonal George



Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watts, Sir Thomas
Womersley, W. J.
Major The Marquess of Titchfield


Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, Jarnes


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Siesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Roilox)


Briant, Frank
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thurtie, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Nell (Giasgow. Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


England, Colonel A.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Giamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Paling.

CLAUSE 112.—(Definitions.)

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to move, in page 93, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
and except that as affecting freight transport hereditaments it means the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.
I did not expect that it would fall to my lot to move this Amendment. It is put down in order that a case may be put to the Committee, and that we may get a statement from the Ministry about the matter. I cannot do better than read a letter I have received from a firm in Leith, putting the matter from their point of view, which will bring the point at issue in a concrete way to the notice of the Committee. The Amendment is put down because of the situation that has arisen affecting coastwise traffic, and
because of the ante-dating of the relief to railway freight transport hereditaments by 10 months. Before the House rose for the Recess we passed the necessary powers ante-dating the relief, which in the ordinary way begins on 1st October this year, to begin, for the railways alone of the freight transport properties, from 1st December last year. For certain kinds of traffic there is very keen competition between the railways and the coastwise lines. This Amendment by itself would not put any money into the pockets of the shipping companies. Its intention is that docks and harbours should be put on an equal footing with railways, so that, by cutting dues, it may be passed on to coastwise shipping firms so that they may not be unfairly treated because of the ante-dating, the unfairness of which we think the Government did not mean. The Dundee, Perth and London
Shipping Company write from their Leith office:
We would respectfully draw your attention to the position in which regular coasting companies of the United Kingdom are placed through the Government's having anticipated the De-rating Bill in favour of the railway companies, thus putting them in a position to grant an allowance to traders of 10 per cent. from 1st December, 1928. The original scheme provided for the docks and other interests enjoying the benefits of the de-rating policy from December, 1929, and railway companies were to be in the same position. As you are aware, the Government changed their mind and made an exceptional arrangement as regards the railway companies. The result is that from 1st December, 1928, the railway companies have been empowered to grant a rebate of 10 per cent. to traders in agricultural commodities such as potatoes, oilcakes and manures. A very large proportion of these traffics did not travel by rail previously; merchants looked to the coasting companies to provide the regular service to carry them at low rates. These rates have always been kept at a low level, not only on account of the railway competition but on account of competition by tramp steamers.
6.0 p.m.
The letter further points out that the matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister of Transport, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health, by the Chamber of Shipping, in order that they might be prevailed upon to grant to docks and harbours and other freight and transport services the ante-dating by 10 months which has been given to the railway companies.
It will be asked whether there is any material point in this. It is very difficult, since the scheme has only just begun to work, to give any concrete evidence of the effect upon coastwise steamship owners, but I will give some figures affecting my own constituency. Every other hon. Member who represents a port will have had figures given to him from his own port. Take the Port of Leith. A certain shipowner points out that of the scheduled traffic carried in November, 1928, a month before the ante-dating of the railway relief, he carried 587 tons, whereas in the month of December, after the relief had been given to the railways, the traffic had fallen to 486 tons, or a reduction of 17.2 per cent. Another owner states that in regard to oil cake, in November, 1928, he carried 250 tons and
in December he carried none. Therefore the whole traffic appears to have gone from the coastwise ships to the railways in that particular commodity. With regard to coal, the same firm carried, in November, 1928, 2,831 tons, and in December, 1,876 tons—a drop of 33 percent. In regard to grain, in the month of November, 449 tons were carried, whereas in the month of December, a month after the railway relief had begun to operate, only 259 tons were carried, a drop of 42 per cent. These are partial figures and I do not wish to press them too highly, but we have been asked for indications, and these figures have been given to me by firms in my own constituency. I have no doubt that hon. Members sitting for other seaports wilt have been given by various shipping companies in their constituencies comparable figures in regard to the schedule of traffics concerned.
There can be no doubt as to the fact that in regard to certain traffic, such as potatoes from Dundee, the railway companies have made definite offers of a cut of 10 per cent. because of the ante-dating of the railway relief. The point which we wish to put to the Committee, and which we wish to be made clear, is whether or not the Government in this way suggested in the Amendment, or in any other way, can meet the point raised by the coastwise shipping companies. I need not stress the extreme value to the nation of the maintenance of an efficient and effective coastwise shipping service. To some of us, because we sit for seaports, it seems that the Minister of Transport thinks too much about railways and not enough about ships as a means of transport. Whether that be so or not, the fact is that in Northern Ireland where they have ante-dated the relief, as we have ante-dated it in England and Wales in regard to railways, they have made provision not merely to ante-date the relief given to the railways but they have made it apply to all forms of freight transport hereditaments as laid down in the Bill. I move the Amendment in order that the right hon. Gentleman may make a statement as to the view of the Government.

Sir L. SCOTT: The question raised by this Amendment is one of great importance. The Amendment, I think, is one which is not capable of acceptance
by the Minister in charge of the Bill, but it is one which raises the question effectively. The position, quite shortly, is, that under the concession given to the railway companies, and quite properly given, in order to expedite the relief intended by the Bill, for instance, to agriculture, the railways are put into the position of competing with coastwise shipping traffic in the selected types of goods which get the benefit of the scheme as applied to the railways, so as to force the coastwise shipowners into a position of extreme difficulty. They have to face one of two things, and they are facing it with courage. They have either to attempt to keep up their freights and lose their traffic, or they have to lower the freights at a time when shipping is not paying or hardly paying at all.
Employment in the shipping trade is just as important to this country as employment in any other industry. The shipping trade is to-day in the seventh year of a long and profound depression. Owners have been running ships for years and years without profits, barely paying a part of their depreciation. The coastwise shipowners, in some ways, have not been quite as badly off as the owners of the big ocean-going ships, but shipping in this country has certainly suffered appallingly for a long series of years. The coastwise trade is struggling up at the present time, and in the last few months things have seemed a trifle better; but it is now faced with a position which may be one of very great hindrance. The money figures involved are not necessarily very large, but there is a principle of great importance involved and a question of absolute justice.
There is one aspect of shipping which I do not think Members of this House have realised as much as they ought to realise it, and that is that British shipping, practically speaking, gets no subsidy from the Government. It gets no help from the Government with which to compete with foreign shipowners. Foreign owners, or the great majority of foreign owners, get very large subsidies from their Governments, and all the time-the shipping trade of this country has to fight an uneven fight in competition with the foreign owners who get immense help from their Governments. Of course, that does not apply very much to coastwise traffic, but you cannot regard the shipping trade in sections; you must always think
of it as a whole. Broadly speaking, the shipping trade of this country has been suffering from very extreme difficulties due to the competition of foreign shipowners, greatly added to by the assistance given to foreign shipowners by their Governments.
At this moment, the Government, by their action in assisting agriculture by helping the railways have, inadvertently, done a great injury to the coastwise shipping trade of this country. They have put a burden upon the coastwise trade. They have not only not given it money assistance, as they have given assistance to the railways, but they have actually put upon it a burden, because they have forced the shipowners to reduce their rates. Let me read a few figures which I had taken out last week with respect to the Coast Lines, which represents 60 per cent. of the strictly coastwise traffic. These are the rates upon oil cake and potatoes. I will take random examples of traffic which come within the scope of the benefits given to the railways. From Liverpool to Glasgow the steamer rate on oil cake prior to the de-rating assistance which has been given to the railway companies, was 15s. That rate has been reduced to 13s. 9d., simply because the coastwise shipowners cannot keep the traffic otherwise, on account of the competition of the railways. That is a reduction of 1s. 3d. on a rate of 15s.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. and learned Member give the corresponding railway rates?

Sir L. SCOTT: I have not the rail way rates at the moment, but I assume that probably these rates are lower than the railway rates. Nearly always that is the case, slightly. The point is, that these are recent reductions in consequence of what has been done for the railway companies. The rates for oil cake from Liverpool to Greenock, which were 15s. 5d., have been reduced to 14s. 2d., and there have been similar reductions in the rates to Leith and Bristol. The rates to Portsmouth have been reduced from 21s. to 19s. 6d., and to Southampton from 22s. to 19s. 6d. From Leith and Dundee, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea the rate on the carriage of potatoes has been reduced from 22s. 6d. to 20s.
These are typical rates. Estimates have been made, and the loss involved is
only a comparatively small figure, something between £50,000 and £100,000, during the period that will elapse between now and 1st October next year, not a very large figure; but the point is that if the shipping companies were to attempt to keep up their pre-de-rating rates, the rates that were obtained at the end of last year, they would lose their trade, and trade once diverted from one channel into another channel is very difficult to get back. That is the real point. Obviously, they cannot face that risk; they have no alternative but to reduce their rates and, consequently, the position is that the farming community, for instance, get the benefit of lower rates from the railways and, as a consequence of what has been done for the railways, they equally get lower rates from the shipowners. In the latter case they get the benefit at the expense of the shipowners, whereas the benefit which they get from the railways is not at the expense of the railway companies. That is the unfairness of what has been done. In this way, the Government are putting upon the shipowners a handicap and a discount of their rates which they have no power of controlling; they cannot met it, and this is being done at the end of a seven years' period of depression in the industry.
It is not a question of amount, but a question of principle. This House ought not to allow one trade in the country to be penalised in that kind of inadvertent way. One word on the practical aspect of the matter. I do not think there is any Amendment of this Bill which will make it possible to redress the grievance. The only method is the method which has been adopted in regard to the railway companies. There must be some payment of money to the coasting trade of this country on exactly the same sort of lines as that given to the railway company. Fortunately, it is a small sum of money which is involved, but the Government ought not to say that because it is a small sum it is not worth while doing this piece of justice. They ought to say: "Thank Heaven, it is a small sum, and therefore that enables us to do what is asked!" The coast lines of this country are not unreasonable. All that they say is: "Put us in the same position as if you had not, so to speak,
given an extra amount to the railway companies in order to enable them to compete with us and to take away our natural traffic."
It is of extreme importance to this country that the coasting trade should be maintained in a healthy condition. A considerable amount of saving is involved in goods imported into this country, and to some extent on goods exported from this country by means of the coastwise trade. Handling is reduced as compared with railway transport, and the facilities for discharge are considerably increased by having coastwise traffic available alongside the large ocean steamers; and insurance rates are lower on imported goods sold in this country if railway carriage is not included in the transport. These are small things, but in their total amount they are considerable and important to the shipping trade of this country. I submit that not only is there a principle of justice involved but also the policy of doing something to facilitate a method of importation which is in the interests of the country.
I have a practical proposal to make. I am informed that the Chamber of Shipping has been able to work out a very simple system by which if the Government will find the comparatively small amount of money necessary, the shipowners of coastwise trade can account for every penny received, and make quite certain that the money is transmitted to the destination desired in accordance with the scheme of the Bill. The administration of the scheme can be assured with the assistance of the water transport sub-committees at the ports. I ask the Government to agree to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament from all parties, because this is a non-party question, and all the interests affected; to allow them to put their case before the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport and see whether there is not an unanswerable case although it is a small one.

Mr. SEXTON: I have endeavoured, as far as my limited intelligence willallow me, to grasp some of the points which have been raised during the Debates on this Bill. I confess that I have not much technical knowledge, and perhaps may not have grasped many of the points raised very clearly, but on the particular question
raised by this Amendment I do claim to have some practical knowledge. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite realised the serious questions raised by this Amendment. The principle of the Bill, as I understand it, is to relieve industry and reduce unemployment, but if he resists this proposal, he will be intensifying unemployment and adding to the burdens of a particular industry. We conceded, not without some sacrifice, the freedom of the roads to the railways, and all that we are asking for in this Amendment is the freedom of the seas. It affects not only the shipowner but the men engaged at the docks as well. I have had some 20 years painful personal experience in the work of handling cargoes, and I know something about the conditions which prevail in this particular industry to-day. There are, I should say, about 33 per cent. of the men unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman has only to consult the figures supplied by the Ministry of Labour to find out the exact numbers. As far back as 1912 we created machinery of a very exceptional character which not only certifies the number of men employed daily, but also collects the wages of the men and pays them for their work at the end of the week. Therefore, I speak with some authority on this point. According to the returns of the Ministry of Labour 33 per cent. of the men employed on the docks to-day are permanently unemployed. The railway companies, in order to increase their traffic, and I am not blaming them for that, have gone to those people who generally use coastwise lines for the carriage of goods and intimated that they are prepared to cut their rates if they will divert their traffic from the coastwise lines.
The right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) has said that the rates for coastwise traffic are slightly below those of the railways. That is quite true; and why? The reason is that the facilities given by the railways, as compared with the coastwise trade, ensure a quicker dispatch. That is not always the case. I have known instances where the railway has not given quicker dispatch. During the War the coastlines and short sea traders lost a considerable amount of traffic which they have never got back; but it does not always follow that the railway gives a quicker dispatch of goods, nor do they
guarantee delivery on a particular day. Generally speaking there is as much delay on the railways as there is on the coastwise lines. My strong point, however, is, that in addition to handicapping and restricting imports by their policy of safeguarding, the Government are giving an advantage to railway companies over the coastwise, trade by the ante-dating of the freight relief, and thus intensifying unemployment. All we ask is that in all fairness there should be some kind of equity; and that the present amount of unemployment in casual labour at the docks should not be intensified. The casual labourer engaged in this trade is the Lazarus of our industrial system; a picker-up here and there of unconsidered trifles; one who watches the opportunity of picking up an odd job here and there. If the Clause is passed in its present shape it will further intensify unemployment in this grade of labour and the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is not going to gain either on the swings or the roundabouts; he is going to lose on both.
I have never doubted the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman to try to reduce unemployment and help industry, but let me say, without any reflection upon him and without any intention to offend, that a somewhat hypothetical and unmentionable region is paved with good intentions. The only effect of the Clause as it stands will be to rob Peter without paying Paul what is due to him, and I hope between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will find a way whereby the inequalities which exist in this matter will be avoided. The casual worker at the docks is the first to be. hit by any depression in trade, and the last to profit by any revival. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do what is asked by this Amendment. If the coastwise shipowner is affected by any lowering of the freights and loses profit, it is bound to have an effect upon the position of the men.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite recognise the good intentions of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee, but I could not help wondering while listening to him whether he had read the Amendment to which he was speaking. The Committee is in this extraordinary position that the Amendment we are now discussing has been dis-
missed both by the mover and its principal supporter as being impracticable. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) shakes his head, but he recognised that it would not be effective in carrying out its purpose.

Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentlemen knows very well that this point has been raised very late and that the more effective Amendments which would have given us all that we wanted could not be discussed because of the Guillotine. We are left with this resource.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I am saying. The hon. Member wishes the Committee to understand that although he is moving this Amendment it is not what he wants; he wants something quite different. It is an extraordinary position for the Committee. Apparently we are all agreed that this Amendment is not practicable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] If there is any hon. Member who does not hold that opinion, I had better devote one or two words of examination as to what it really does. What does it really effect? It puts the appointed day, as far as transport is concerned, back to 31st December, 1928, instead of 1st October, 1929. That applies not merely to docks but also to railways. What is the position of the railways? The relief has already been anticipated. They are already making rebates in respect of certain commodities. They would also be de-rated again. It would mean that we should do the thing twice over. Obviously, that would be an impossible situation as far as the railways were concerned; it would be necessary to scrap the existing scheme altogether. It would be impossible to carry it out because you would be depriving local authorities of a good part of their revenue for the current period for which they will have no substitute whatever. The whole thing would be a perfect chaos.
Let me examine now the particular grievance which I understand the hon. Member is bringing forward. The point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) really cannot rest upon so small a foundation as that which was the subject of the speech of the hon. Member for Leith. What are the rebates that the railways are giving on their rates? They
are given only to certain selected traffics, not to all traffics. The selected traffics are, except to a small extent, not traffics which are carried coastwise. We have been told that the great principle that is enshrined here we must be careful to preserve. What the principle is I do not know. The thing itself is of very small dimensions indeed.

Mr. SEXTON: The principle is that these ships are carrying the raw materials of our factories, and the docks would be a cul-de-sac without them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I am saying is that the rebates which are given to the railways are not given on all traffics, but only on certain traffics, such as coal for export and coal for iron and steel works.

Mr. SEXTON: Raw materials.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are not all raw materials. For instance, there are certain agricultural articles, such as oilcake and, I think, potatoes. When we ask what it all comes down to we find it is oilcake and potatoes. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] If anyone says that there is something else, he can follow me and say what it is. As far as I can ascertain there is nothing involved but oilcake and potatoes. It is quite clear that when the scheme comes into full operation, when the docks get their rate relief, they are to pass it on to their customers. But there is nothing to say that they are to pass it on to selected traffic. The argument of the hon. Member opposite was, I believe, based on the supposition that what had to be considered was the period of 10 months, or thereabouts, between the time when the full scheme comes into operation and the beginning of this scheme of anticipated rebates. It is only a short time. The hon. Member gave some figures to show that the quantity of these particular articles carried by a particular firm had been less in one particular month than in another. But really we cannot base our action on such very isolated figures. We cannot judge whether that loss of trade is or is not due to the competition of the railways. It might be due to a number of other things; at any rate other things with which we are not familiar may account for a considerable part of the difference.
I am not going to say that everybody will be in exactly the same relative position when this scheme comes into operation as they were before. I am sure we shall find that there are grievances, and people will say that a competitor is getting an advantage. That is inevitable in a scheme of this kind. Whilst hon. Members have put forward this grievance they have put forward no remedy for it, and have made no suggestion except that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott), which is nothing more nor less than a permanent subsidy to a particular kind of shipment. I do not think the Committee would look favourably on a proposal of that kind. We have not quite got to that yet.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman chided my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) with not understanding the Amendment. I am not going to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not understanding his Bill. But he does not understand the circumstances of coastal shipping vis-a-vis the railways, He knows nothing whatever about it, and every shipowner in this House who heard his speech will bear me out in that statement. The position is this: There has been for years a natural rivalry between the railway companies and the coastal shipping lines for carrying certain traffics. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is merely a matter of oilcake and potatoes. It is nothing of the kind. There is a very heavy traffic in manures, in pig-iron and in coal. Does the right hon. Gentleman know how much of the London coal comes by sea? I believe the amount is over 30 per cent. That is omitted from the Schedule.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The coal coming into the Port of London is for gas works and industrial consumption.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is not the case. There is a great deal of coal that conies by sea for domestic use, and does not get any rebate. The point is that under the Schedule of the Bill the coal carried coastwise is deliberately excluded to meet the railways' demands. There are other
traffics as well. There are manures, oilcakes, feeding meals, millers' offal and provender. It is not a little matter. The trade affected is very considerable Where you have this intense competition between the railways and the coastal lines, if you give the advantage to the railways you upset the whole balance and do far more damage to the coastal lines than the mere decrease of 10 per cent. in the rates would appear to indicate. I hold here a letter from the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the London, Midland and Scottish Company. It is a joint letter to a firm of potato merchants in Aberdeenshire. They quote the freights from Aberdeen to Newcastle, Hull, London, etc., by rail, on the understanding that the whole of the traffic is to be guaranteed for rail transport. These are the words:
We are prepared to quote the following rates conditional upon the whole of the traffic being guaranteed for railway transport.
Having quoted the rates they say:
We may say that the charges will be subject to the 10 per cent. allowance under the railway freights relief scheme, and in view of the reduced charges now available for the traffic by rail, we trust that the members of your Association will consider favourably the sending of the whole of the-traffic by rail.
That letter is dated 14th December. They knew what was going to be done long before this House had settled the matter. There had been secret meetings between the Minister of Transport and the railway companies, and some selected members of the National Farmers' Union and one or two others. The hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver) knows ail about it—these hole-and-corner meetings. Here we see the result. It is blackmail purely and simply, and the right hon. Gentleman has put the railway companies in the position of being able to levy this blackmail.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought it was potatoes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, it is blackmail by the railway companies against the merchants. They give reduced rates, not according to the will of Parliament, but on condition that the whole of the traffic is sent by rail.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman never heard of
any shipping company doing the same thing?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Certainly, but this House has passed a provision whereby the whole of the traffic in potatoes on the railways must receive a 10 per cent. rebate in exchange for the subsidy, but here we have the railway company threatening this Association of merchants that if they dare to send a ton of potatoes by steamer the will of this House is not to be carried out. Here it is in writing. These rates are quoted with a 10 per cent. reduction on condition that the whole of the traffic is sent by rail and not otherwise. But that is only one part of the story. The right hon. Gentleman has permitted the railways to steal this march, to get this advantage over the coastwise shipping companies until next October. But he says, "Oh, then it will be all right." But what is to happen to my constituents in the meantime, those who are thrown out of work. What about the constituents of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) and the constituents of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who are thrown out of work? It is true that there is great unemployment in the docks. There is a very carefully balanced wage rate for the stevedores, with the shipowners as a party to it, and if the trade is upset that wage rate will be upset also. The men may not be able to accept a reduction, and then there will be industrial trouble.
It is all very well for the Minister to make light of this matter. It is a very serious business. I do not altogether blame him. The truth is that the coast shipping companies have been caught napping. Their officials were in communication, or tried to get into communication with the Minister of Transport, but he kept them at arm's length. They saw some junior official and got no satisfaction. They were kept engaged while the real negotiations went on between the Minister himself and the railway directors. That is how the real business was arranged. The unfortunate coastal shipping lines and the Chamber of Shipping were kept in the dark until the Bill came before the House. When the terms of the Government proposal for anticipating rating relief were known, they tried to take what action they
could. When the Supplementary Estimate was coming before Parliament, I received a telegram—just as other hon. Members received similar telegrams—from my Chamber of Commerce, begging of me to ask the Government to extend the same privilege to the docks. I did so in December last. I got no satisfaction from the Minister. He ignored the point. I hate to say "I told you so," but I warned him in so many words that he was going to have a repetition of the chaos which we had during the War when the balance was upset and when, for strategical reasons, we had to send more freight by rail. Then, the coastal shipping traffic was disorganised and they had the greatest difficulty in winning back the traffic which they lost while there was congestion on the railway.
Hardly anyone else in the House was able to press home that point. It was not known what was going to be the effect on the coastal shipping lines. If half the fuss had been made about this question that was made about the private mineral railways, we would have got a concession then. But the interests concerned allowed themselves to be hoodwinked and were kept at arm's length by the Minister of Transport. All this is very unfortunate for the poor people who depend for their livelihoods on this traffic. The right hon. Gentleman says it is impossible to anticipate the derating of docks. It was considered impossible at first to anticipate the de-rating of the railways. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) pleading for an anticipation of the rate relief on the railways and it was then regarded as impossible. It would be no more impossible to derate the docks, than it was to give this relief to the railways in December last I consider the Amendment is feasible and workable and if it does inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman I would rather have that than the worse inconvenience which will be caused to the unfortunate workmen concerned in this matter.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not wish to take up much of the time of the Committee on this question, but I am afraid that attention has been diverted from the real point. The real point is simply this. Owing, no doubt, to an oversight, this particular form of transport which is as necessary to us as other forms of transport—because we do not wish
that there should be any monopoly in transport in this country, and we know how vital it is to have an option from time to time, in regard to different forms of transport, and we know the great service which the coastal service is doing—will be injured by this arrangement. But the amount involved is not large and the period of time concerned is not long. I thought that the Minister did not quite convey the true position as I understand it. It is quite true that the Bill does not stipulate any direct payment to the coastal shipping people. On the other hand, the coastal shipping people trust the dock people, and have reason to trust them, and to believe that they will do the right thing. There is no doubt that they will. I do not go further than that, but it is clear that business men do not trust people without knowing what they are about. There is no fear on that score.
I think that, quite unintentionally, there has been some slight misunderstanding in another respect. This is not a permanent subsidy, but a measure of very temporary assistance to tide over, until the appointed day arrives, a difficulty created by an oversight in the Bill. There is no other suggestion. As regards the Amendment, I do not see how it could be supported because it would put the Bill info a hopeless position; but I am glad to see that the point which the Amendment brings out has been fully discussed in the Committee. I do not want to see that point exaggerated, although, it is important. At the same time, there is a grievance which I hope the Minister will see his way to remedy. Justice ought to be done. Above all, we do not want to see our shipping in any way injured at a moment like the present. While various rather brilliant, though perhaps hardly logical suggestions have been made in the course of the Debate, I hope we shall confine ourselves to the simple point which has been brought before the Minister by this Amendment and I trust that the Amendment, having served its purpose, will be withdrawn. I also hope that the Minister, and those who may have been disposed to look upon this matter too lightly, will realise that though it may be a small point in itself, the principle is a serious one and one to which they ought to give further attention.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I have observed before that when the Minister deals with matters outside his own Department, his knowledge generally proves to be of the sketchiest kind. I do not want to put it in any stronger terms than that. We have had illustrations of the fact before, and I think it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the subject with which he is now dealing. He tries to deal with it by belittling it, and by saying that this is only an incidental discomfort, that it is only going to operate for a short time, and that it is merely a matter of oil cake and potatoes. It does not matter to me whether it is a small problem or not. It is, in fact, larger than the right hon. Gentleman pretends, but, whether it be small or not, this is an injustice which has arisen out of this Bill and it is very real to the people affected. I am not moved by what the right hon. Gentleman said about this Amendment not doing what is wanted There is still a Report stage, and if the right hon. Gentleman cared to make some amends, he could do so perfectly well. The fact that we have not been able to raise the matter before is not our fault. The right hon. Gentleman's guillotine has prevented us having full opportunity of doing so.
What is the position? This all goes back to what I have said more than once in the course of these Debates. The right hon. Gentleman is always defending his de-rating of railways on the ground that the whole of the advantage is to be handed over to the consumers—that it is to be passed on in the form of lower freights for certain selected traffics. I have pointed out, and other hon. Members have pointed out, that although it may be perfectly true that the railways have to pass on in reduced freights all they get from de-rating, yet the very fact that they are able to reduce their freights below the economic level, which has hitherto obtained as against their competitors, gives them an advantage over coastwise traffic and road transport. The proposal was bound to mean that traffic would be attracted to the railways which had hitherto bean carried in other ways. My attention has been drawn to-day to what is happening at this very moment. Coal, which has hitherto been carried by steamer, is now being carried by rail. That is very serious. If you are going to allow the
railway companies to take, even selected traffics, from other forms of transport, you may confer some small benefit on railways but you are going to impose a serious hardship on the other forms of transport affected.
The coastwise traffic of this country is no inconsiderable matter. It is an industry of substantial importance and it happens to have had an extraordinarily bad time since the War. I know of no industry which has suffered more than the coastwise and short sea traffic industry of this country. During these nine months—short as the period is—you will drive these people into a position of grave difficulty from which they will not be able to emerge at the end of the nine months. It is not as though you were merely asking them to make this sacrifice in the interests of the Tory party for nine months, and that their position was to be bettered at the end of that time. That will not be the case. The traffic diverted to the railways will tend to remain with the railways, and an industry which is already depressed will be injured more severely still.
7.0 p.m.
When we come to the dockside we find there a colossal problem of unemployment which is bound to be intensified. Even if it is only, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a small problem; even if it only adds 200 to the number of unemployed in our ports, it is an evil thing that such an injustice should be perpetrated and that the Government should do nothing when it is brought to their notice. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we proceed on the lines suggested, we shall create chaos, but it is the scheme that is making the chaos. It is the scheme that is wrong. The fact that the Government, without due regard to shipping interests, have selected one form of transport for public assistance at the expense of every other form of transport, has created the chaotic condition to which attention is drawn by the Amendment. The people concerned with coastwise traffic cannot allow these nine months to elapse and hope to get back again the traffic which they will lose. Kipling has said:
But, oh, the little cargo boats!
They've got to load or die.
Unless they are going to get the loads, these boats must die and the effect of the
Government proposal will be to create a serious problem in one of our essential industries. Hon. Members will surely agree that the Mercantile Marine is one of our vital industries. The effect of the Government proposals as they stand, will be to inflict serious injury on that industry. The right hon. Gentleman tries to brush the matter aside by saying it is not very large. If the injustice is a real one—as admittedly it is—then it is the Government's business to find a way out of it. If the method suggested here will not do, then it is the Minister's responsibility to find another way. As we have been reminded, we were told at first that it was impracticable to anticipate the date originally fixed for the de-rating of railways, but sufficient pressure on the Minister in that case converted the impracticable into the practicable. It was done and done very speedily and the amended proposal came into operation in next to no time. If this grievance appeals to the Minister at all, he can remedy it. If he does not remedy it, then we must simply add it to the other grievances and injustices which this Measure is bound to create.

Mr. RADFORD: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made it clear to the Committee that this Amendment was an unworkable one but he certainly did not satisfy me that the position, if not dealt with, is not very inequitable nor did he satisfy me that the question was not capable of solution. As I understand it, free and open competition between the railways and coastwise traffic was not interfered with by any Government until December, 1928. Had the original intention of the Government been adhered to, the position would still have been unaffected but the Government ante-dated the relief to certain railway traffic as from 1st December, 1928, by a grant of 3⅓ millions. The right hon. Gentleman has said, rightly, that any differentiation as between the treatment of the railways and the treatment of the coastwise traffic is only a comparatively small matter and only for a period of 10 months. That is quite true. He also said that none of the hon. Members who supported this Amendment have put forward any suggestion as to how to remedy it. I suggest to him that, when the Government decided that a grant of 3⅓ millions would be a figure
which would justify them in calling upon the railways to make a 10 per cent. reduction as from 1st December on the freight charges on certain commodities, they must have had the data in front of them to enable them to come to that decision. The information which they had before them with regard to that particular traffic from the railway companies could also have been available to them in regard to the traffic borne by our coastwise steamers. I appeal to the Minister on the grounds of equity to have the necessary inquiries made and to invite the coastwise steamer companies to give him the necessary figures, duly certified, so that the very small amount may be voted to them which will make their position during the period between 1st December and 1st October, when (he two competing classes of carriers will be once more level, an equitable one. It is our duty in this House not to look at matters parochially and not to be concerned only with our own constituencies but nevertheless, while taking a broad national view, we must think of our own constituents first. Only this week while I was interviewing the Transport and General Workers' Federation about getting some men who are out of work back into work at the Salford Docks I was told that the work there was not sufficient to keep employed the casual workers already there and that two or three hundred men were unemployed. I sincerely hope that between now and Report stage the Minister will be in a position to make some statement which will satisfy us.

Mr. MARCH: Some time ago when the Minister was speaking in regard to this matter, he said it was only the potatoes and oilcake that were concerned, but, if he had asked his right hon. Friend beside him, he would have heard a different story. The President of the Board of Trade knows quite well the different commodities which are carried by the coastwise steamers to our wharves in London and knows that they include a good many other commodities. Potatoes at this time of the year are a very important freight from Dundee, Aberdeen, and the other coastal places. We get thousands of tons brought in from Aberdeen. The Scottish potatoes are well known to be the best seed potatoes the farmers can get in this country and the majority of them come by coast-
wise steamer. I have a letter here which I have received from the Aberdeen Wharf Company in my division, in, which they point out that this will mean a big reduction in the labour that they have been in the habit of employing. It not only means a big reduction in employment for dockers and for those who do the loading and return loading, but also for vehicle workers who do the carting away from that wharf to places in and around London. Many of those loads are carried long distances by motor.
I do not think the Minister has realised what he is actually doing. If there is no possibility of accepting this Amendment and he states that the amount granted to the railways was in respect of specially selected goods, cannot this be extended to the coastwise steamers on specially selected goods on the same lines as with regard to the railways? Then the reduction of 10 per cent. can be given on those commodities which are going to assist the agricultural workers. A large number of men are affected by this matter round our wharves. Our shipping and ports and wharves have been very hard hit for a number of years. There is no industry in this country which has been hit so hard as the shipping industry. We have 33 per cent. of the dockers of this country unemployed for years and there is not another industry, not even the miners, that can say the same thing. Therefore, I think that the Minister ought to give this matter very serious consideration and see if there is not a possibility of putting this industry on an equality with regard to the percentage which can be given to those specially selected goods. I hope we will get this matter considered in the right direction.

Sir BASIL PETO: I want to put to the Minister very shortly the case from a slightly different angle. It may be quite true that this is a very small question and deals with a very limited period, but I want to point out how it affects one specific case which I will bring to the attention of the Committee. We have only had a coastwise service, which is of great importance, restored since 1922 to the district I represent. There is not a very wide difference between the railway rates and the freight that can be charged on this coastwise ser-
vice from Bristol to the Port of Bideford on articles which are essential to agriculture, such as artificial manures, feeding stuffs and goods of that kind. Under the present proposals the Minister is giving the railway companies a ten months run during which they will be in the position of offering the attractive advantage of a 10 per cent. reduction in their freights. That will bring their freights almost to an equality with those charged by the sea. What is this coastwise steamer company to do? It has either to make a 10 per cent. reduction on its freights for 10 months out of the pockets of the owners or shareholders or it has got to withdraw this particular coastal facility for some time. Once you upset the balance and drive goods, which have been accustomed to go by sea, back to the railway it is very difficult to get them back again and it is very likely that you will not get that essential competing service, which is so necessary to meet the needs of the farmers, restored at all. What is the effect? Clearly, it is of immense advantage to the agricultural industry that this service from Bristol to Bideford and the other little ports should be maintained. It is also undoubtedly an advantage to the workers in unloading these coastwise vessels. We have a very high percentage of unemployed. In November, there were 16 per cent. unemployed at (he Port of Bideford, and I do not want to see them increased. I do not want to see the farmers' facilities for getting cheap manure and foodstuffs taken away from them. That is not the purpose of this Bill. Although I agree with the Minister that the particular words of this Amendment are quite impossible, yet we all know that there is a Report stage, and that a very trifling sum of money would do away with this inequality for this period of ten months.
I understand from the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) that the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott) never put forward any idea of a permanent subsidy amounting to £100,000 a year for coastwise steamers. It is only a matter of ten months. There is nothing in the Bill which would insure that the coastwise steamers will be in exactly the position of the railway companies to offer a 10 per cent. reduc-
tion on those particular freights but these particular articles are the very articles that are carried in the case I have quoted and it is obvious that, when they get relief under this Bill, they will have the money and will use it to reduce whatever freights it will be in their interest to reduce. In practice they will be the freights on the same things as the railway companies are put in a position to reduce. That comes out of the ordinary law of competition. We are only dealing with this period of 10 months and I ask the Minister between now and Report in the interests of agriculture, in the interests of employment, in the interests of maintaining this vital coastal service, not to do anything which would be injurious to agriculture, and to consider putting the coastwise services on terms of equality for this period of ten months.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but, in view of the statements made as to the effect of these proposals upon coastwise traffic, I think it my duty to say a few words to the Committee. We are all agreed as to the value of coastwise shipping, whether in peace or war, and I do not think any of us would rightly assent to any proposal which was going seriously to affect the coastwise shipping trades. Certainly, if I were satisfied that any proposal made in this Bill was calculated to have very serious or unfair effects upon coastwise slipping, I would be the first to tender advice to my colleagues in the sense expressed in all quarters of the Committer.

Sir L. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation to satisfy him on that point?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already had an opportunity, not of hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but of having the very fullest possible discussion with two Members of this House, the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and another hon. Member, who presented the views of the Chamber of Shipping. I had a discussion of very great length with them, and I have been in touch for a considerable time with the Chamber of Shipping. The one thing on which I think a strong case was made out was the question of coal, and that is entirely met in the body of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I right in saying that in the Schedule to the Bill, on page 139, "coal, coke and patent fuel shipped coastwise" are left out?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really, the hon. and gallant Member is more royalist than the King. I discussed this with the Chamber of Shipping, and the only case made out was in regard to a particular class of coal, namely, coal which after being shipped coastwise is exported or used for bunkers. To give a rebate on other coastwise coal would be giving a rebate on coal shipped coastwise where there was no rebate on railway traffic. The only case put forward by the Chamber of Shipping was that you may get coal which is shipped coastwise, for example, to the Port of London, which ultimately passes, not into domestic or industrial consumption, but into coal for export or for foreign bunkers. In that case the railway rebate would apply equally to the coal shipped coastwise as to the coal sent to the port of export by rail. Three-quarters or more of the total amount of rebates with which we are concerned are on coal, and there the coastwise shipping case has been met.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot give way. I say that advisedly, and I say it in the presence of those hon. Members who know this position, with the Chamber of Shipping, and I am sure that no hon. Member who does know it will deny what I have said.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have evidence to the contrary.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said, "Hon. Members who know." Then he mentioned pig iron. Pig iron is not included.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not a fact that in Parts I, II and III of the Schedule you will find ore, pig iron and scrap iron?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, you will find ore, but not pig iron or scrap iron.

Mr. BROWN: I beg to differ.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really that is so. What are included are ore, limestone, and pit-props. We may differ,
perhaps, on opinions, but surely not on facts. Therefore, the coastwise question only arises when we come to deal with the agricultural traffic, which is relatively small, and it only arises then—and my right hon. Friend is quite right—with regard to a very few of those agricultural traffics; and in the representations which I have received the serious question is on a certain amount of potatoes and feeding-stuffs and perhaps a little artificial manure. Let me put two things to the Committee. The first is that what is asked is in effect a subsidy to meet the 10 per cent. difference in railway rates—we are all agreed about that—and the subsidy would not be for nine months only. I think hon. Members are too optimistic if they suppose that when they can claim any guarantee from the dock authorities they are going to apply what they get in derating preferentially to coastwise shipping. I should be deceiving the Committee if I said anything else.

Sir L. SCOTT: That is not what is asked for.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: J know, but I am concerned to show that it would not be sufficient for your purposes. If we granted a subsidy for nine months, that subsidy would have to continue afterwards.

Mr. BROWN: No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Unless you have a complete guarantee from the dock companies that what they are going to do with the relief when they get it is to apply it to coastwise shipping you have no guarantee that they will not apply it to other purposes as well As a matter of fact, I am pretty certain that when the docks come to apply their relief they will find that there will be a very large number of claims. Not only has all shipping its interest in getting a reduction of dock charges, but traders who are represented on the dock authorities and who ship goods will make their voice heard. So far from it being certain that dock relief will be confined to selected traffics, I am certain that this argument will be advanced, that the selected traffics have had a very considerable amount of relief already and that it ought to be the turn of other traffics which have not been specially selected. Therefore, if you are to give
a subsidy at all you will have to give it for more than nine months, and the Committee would want a very strong ease I think to convince it that a subsidy was desirable. There may be some reduction made in rates by the railways in some cases—I think that is certain—but surely what we have to consider is if the difference in these freights is such as to call upon us to come in and invite the taxpayers to find the money for a subsidy.
In regard to the argument that these freights were so close that the coastwise companies would lose a good deal of trade if ever there was any reduction in the railway rates, my right hon. Friend asked the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) whether he could give the corresponding railway rate. I have got it. It is important in considering the justice of the case, to see whether the railway rates and the coastwise freights are just about the same, in which case even a small reduction is going to make a good deal of difference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the case of oilcake shipped from Liverpool to Glasgow. The steamer rate is 15s., but the railway late, even after the rebate of 10 per cent. is taken off, is 25s. 4d. a ton.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is that a special rate?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I am quoting is the rate quoted by the railway companies to-day, less the rebate of 10 per cent.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My point is this, that, however different they were before, they now work on competitive prices.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the case is really going to be put that where you find a difference of 10s. a ton in favour of the shipping—

Mr. BROWN: Is that a standard rate or an exceptional rate?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is the rate which is being quoted by the railways to-day. When you find that the railway rate quoted is 25s. 4d. and the coastwise freight quoted is 15s., and allowing for the fact that it takes longer to ship—although a great deal of exaggerated importance can be attached to
that point, because when you are shipping potatoes, not new potatoes that you want to get quickly on to a market, but ordinary potatoes, time is not nearly as great a factor as the cost of freight— anxious as I am to do anything I can for coastwise shipping, when you get a difference on that large scale between the sea freight and the railway rate, then I do not think I should be justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find a special subsidy for the coastwise shipping.
Now, the hon. Gentleman says, what about special rates which are quoted if you send your goods exclusively by rail? The last people who can complain of a practice of that kind are the shipping companies. Does not the hon. Member know that the regular practice of all lines? is to give a special rate to those who will ship exclusively by their line It is a practice which has been adopted by every shipping company in the world. It is a practice which has been debated in this House and whch came before the Imperial Shipping Committee, and I remember standing at this Box and defending the shipping companies for bat practice, because it is a very reasonable thing to allow a transport carrier, whether a railway or a shipping line, to give special rates for a known amount of traffic. That is a practice that has been common to the shipping lines for years, and if railways are now doing their business on competitive lines and—I do not want to be offensive—are waking up, if I may so put it, and trying to get traffic by methods which have been common in the shipping world for a long time, that is a matter, I think, upon which to congratulate the railway companies, and it certainly is not a form of competition which the shipowners can say is in any way unfair. Therefore, on the merits of this case, on the amount at stake, and having regard to the difference in the freights on the railways and on the sea, I submit to the Committer, that the case for a special subsidy, which this House always requires to be a very strong case, has not been made out.

Mr. BROWN: In order to show that there is a great deal more to be said than the right hon. Gentleman has said in favour of this coastwise shipping, let me read this telegram that I have re-
ceived from a shipping firm with an office in Leeds:
Potato traffic from Angus, Fife, and Lothian districts by our steamers we have now been forced in order retain traffic which has always been carried by us to grant to traders a rebate similar to railways of 10 per cent. A tonnage of 30,000 tons is involved, and the loss to us is £3,000, which must come out of our pockets.
I think that is sufficient to show that a great deal more than we have been able

to say can be said on this question. I regret the hard-faced view taken by the Ministers on this matter, and I shall have to go to a Division on this important point.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 224.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Sakiatvaia, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Amman, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bellamy, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thurtie, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Ciynes, Rt, Hon. John R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Vlant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


England, Colonel A.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York. Don valley)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Greenall, T
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert [Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Potts, John S.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Purceil, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Giffith, F. Kingsley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eiland)
Mr. Ernest Brown.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Briggs, J. Harold
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briscoe, Richard George
Colfox, Major William Phillips


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colman, N. C. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrld W.
Broun Lindsay, Major H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cope, Major Sir William


Astor, Maj. Hn.JohnJ. (Kent, Dover)
Brown,Brig.-Gen-H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Couper, J. B.


Atkinson, C.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain M.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Butler. Sir Geoffrey
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Campbell. E. T.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Carver, Major W. H.
Crockshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth. Drake)
Cassels, J. D.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davias, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bethel, A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Belterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Chapman, Sir S.
Deen, Arthur Wellesley


Brass, Captain W.
Ciarry, Reginald George
Drewe, C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. O.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westons.-M)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Long, Major Eric
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Fermoy, Lord
Lougher, Lewis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vero
Shepperson, E. W.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Beifst)


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Skeiton, A. N.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)
Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gadle, Lieut. Col. Anthony
MacIntyre, I.
Smithers, Waidron


Gaibraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.
Somervlile, A. A. (Windsor)


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Goft, Sir Park
Mason, Colonel Giyn K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Melier, R. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Greene, W. P. Crawtord
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hammersley, S. S.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hanbury, C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Hasiam, Henry c.
Nuttall, Ellis
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon Hugh
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Frederick George
Waddington, R.


Hills, Major John Walter
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hoare, Lt.- Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hoibrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pitcher, G.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Pownail, Sir Assheton
Wells, S. R.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Preston, William
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Raine, Sir Waiter
Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.
Withers, John James


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland. Whiteh'n)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Iveagh, Countess of
Ruperts, Sir Samuel (Herelord)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneli



Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner. Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rugriles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Captain Margesson and Captain


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G Bowyer.



Question, put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the. Government of which notice had been, given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Amendments made:

In page 93, line 35, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "and second fixed grant periods."

In page 94, leave out from beginning of line 38 to the end of line 2, page 95.

In page 97, line 23, leave out the words "means men," and insert instead thereof the words "and unemployed insured
Women' mean, respectively, men and women."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause 113 (Transmission of benefit of rate-relief in respect of freight transport hereditaments) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 114.—(Repeals.)

Amendment made:

In page 99, line 13, leave out the words "(except as hereinbefore expressly provided)."—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 115.—(Short title and extent.)

Amendment made:
In page 99, line 32, at the end, add the words—
(4) The Minister may by order direct that the provisions of Part III of this Act and such other provisions of this Act as relate to the property, liabilities, and officers of highway authorities shall, subject to such exceptions, adaptations, and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the order, extend to the administrative county of the Isle of Wight, and any such order may amend or repeal any provision contained in the Isle of Wight (Highways) Act, 1925; but, except as so applied, the said provisions of this Act shall not extend to the said county."—[Sir K. Wood.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Investigation of working of rules of Fourth Schedule, Ports 11I and TV, and, of S. 80 (1) (b) )

"The Minister shall, before the expiration of the second fixed grant period, in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, cause an investigation to be made into the working of the rules contained in Parts III and IV of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and of the provisions of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80 of this Act, and shall cause a report of the result of the investigation to be laid before Parliament."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The local authorities in the course of their negotiations with the Government suggested that proposals should be made for the investigation by the Minister, in consultation with the local authorities, into the working of the formula, and the scheme of county distribution before the end of seven years. This is provided for in the Clause, and provision is also made that the investigations should cover the special distribution within the county of London, and also that a report of the result of the investigation should be laid before Parliament. I do not think that there is much necessity for me to make any further observations on these proposals. I think that they may commend themselves to many Members of the Com-
mittee who perhaps are critics of the proposals, because they ensure that before the end of seven years, there will be a complete investigation into the two matters which I have mentioned. This Clause I hope really disposes of such objections as are made as to the future operation of the scheme. My right hon. Friend and those who have responsibilities in these matters consider that at the end of a reasonable period a full investigation should be made into these matters. Obviously, if there is any matter which requires alteration after such an investigation, this will ensure that the result will come before Parliament.
Local authorities generally, I think, have expressed their willingness to undertake their new responsibilities, and I have no doubt they will carry out this new scheme to the best of their ability and with a view to making it a success, and at the end of this period we shall be able to see whether all the gloomy forecasts which have been made by the hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite me once again to-night have been justified, but I think this particular proposal will not meet with any objections in any part of the Committee, because it does ensure the investigation which the local authorities desire, and which those who are re-sponsible for this measure welcome, at the end of seven years' working of the scheme.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think we need not detain the Committee very long over this new Clause. I welcome it, and I welcome it because it has really destroyed the whole scheme. The 15 years' scheme, which has theoretically been extended to 17 years, is now to die at the end of seven years. For that relief we are very grateful, and that is why I propose to ask my hon Friends to join with me in welcoming this Clause.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.)

"It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commence-
ment of this Act provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is another new Clause which we are moving in accordance with agreements which we have concluded with local authorities. The object of it is to make it clear that any further services imposed upon local authorities are not covered by the grants provided in the Bill. If any further services, involving substantial additional local expenditure, are imposed, it will be for Parliament to provide the further assistance required.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish I could accept this Clause with the same enthusiasm with which I accepted the preceding one. If the right hon. Gentleman assures the House that it is the result of an agreement with the local authorities, then either the local authorities are far more stupid than I think they are or the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have misled them. I defy any Member of the House to find in any Act of Parliament now on the Statute Book, or in any Act which has ever been on the Statute Book, any Clause which is similar to this one, I do not know how much paper and ink have been expended upon this Clause, but at any rate it is not worth either paper or ink. It is utterly useless, and more than useless. It deliberately misleads local authorities. I do not want to waste time by going into details about the drafting, though a good deal might be said about that. What is the purpose of the Clause? It is to declare that if Parliament should at some future time impose new duties upon local authorities which will involve them in expenditure that we think that Parliament really ought to provide more money. That is not legislation.
Mark you, this is going into the operative part of the Bill. This is not the preamble of the Bill, in which one can express nice sentiments; this is one of the operative Clauses, but it means nothing. Every Member knows that no Parliament can bind its successors. This Clause is not a pledge, it is the expression of a pious hope. It does not hind anybody; it does not even bind the
present Government, should they be returned to power. It is not binding on any single person. I will be no party to legislation of this kind. I may have to submit to bad legislation, but deliberately to lead people up the garden, as the right hon. Gentleman does in this Clause, is really dishonest, and I think local authorities ought to be informed of the truth of the position.
Local authorities complain that a new service might be passed on to them without being accompanied by additional State help, on the ground that it must be regarded as a service already covered by the block grant, and they say "We should like to know whether, if there are to be such new services, we are going to get more money." The right hon. Gentleman does not know; nobody knows. He has no business to say what he is saying at the present time. He has no business to express any hope as to what those who will come after him are likely to do. It is not merely the dishonesty of it; the shoddiness of this legislation shocks people even more than the dishonesty of it. I have at least a little care for the substance of Acts of Parliament, and I should be sorry to see a precedent set now whereby, whenever a Bill is before the House, the Government of the day adds a new Clause expressing a beautiful hope for everybody's future. That is not legislation, and the Committee ought not to be insulted by the production of such a Clause, even though it purports to be the result of an agreement.
I sincerely hope that Ion. Members opposite will realise the folly of this new Clause, and will see that it is not being fair either to this House or to any future House, nor fair to the local authorities, because I say, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deny it if it be not true, that this Clause means nothing. As a piece of legislation it has no meaning whatever. It can bind nobody, now or hereafter, and is a piece of mere word-spinning designed to throw dust in the eyes of people who, I regret to say, ought to have known better.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: As one of those who, we have been told, ought to know better, and who is principally responsible for this Clause, I rather object to the very strong statements made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). What the
county councils desired was that the present block grant should not cover any future legislation imposing additional social services——

Mr. GREENWOOD: But this Clause does not give the right hon. Gentleman such a guarantee.

Sir E. TURTON: We cannot ask the Government to deposit at the Bank of England a sufficiently large sum to make it perfectly impossible for us to be at any loss under any future legislation, but this Clause is put forward as an expression of the honour of Parliament. [Laughter.] That may be a matter of derision to some hon. Members opposite, but we are prepared to trust the honour of Parliament, and this Clause is the most which we can possibly expect in the circumstances. We were determined, before we came to an agreement with the Government on this financial question, that the block grant should cover only the present social services, which are now grant-earning services. It is extremely probable that in the future legislation will impose upon local authorities further social services which, if it had not been for the new system of block grants, would have earned percentage grants. In order that we might make ourselves as secure as possible we asked the Minister to put in a Clause to this effect. I quite admit what the hon. Member has said. that it is not binding upon future Parliaments, but when you get an avowed declaration of the House of Commons on a Bill of this sort we have reason to expect that it will be honoured in the future by whatever party may be in power, and in that faith, and on behalf of the county councils, we accept this as going as far as we can get in the matter.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I would like to ask the learned Attorney-General whether there is any precedent for the use of the word "intention" in an Act of Parliament in the sense in which it is used here. You can discuss the intention of an Act when you are trying to find out what the Act does and what effect should be given to it, but it cannot be supposed that that is the meaning of the word "intention" in this case, because the following words are altogether inapt in that case. The Clause goes on to talk about
Substantial additional expenditure.
Of course, no Act of Parliament could be left as vague as that. We cannot speak of the intention of this Act; it must mean the intention of some people. Who are those people? Is it the intention of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary? If BO, why are their pious aspirations, their psychological ideas, to have the signal honour of being recorded on the Statute Book? It is an extraordinary situation. This is a memorandum attached to the Act to say that the people partly instrumental in passing it held certain opinions at the time. Beyond that it does nothing whatever. One might just as well collect the opinions about the Bill and the future of the Bill of the Opposition—either the official Opposition or of us on these benches. I should like to know whether there is any actual precedent which would enlighten us as to the effect which can possibly be given to a phrase of this kind.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which a little research would perhaps enable him to answer as well as I can. I should require a little time to make a research in order to see whether there is any precedent for this form of Clause. I rather think I remember something very much like it in the Housing Act which was passed by the Labour party, and I remember moving an Amendment to omit it. It was the first Amendment moved in Committee. I remember saying that the Bill was becoming something rather more like a manifesto than a Bill intended to be an Act of Parliament.

Mr. KELLY: Why follow a bad example?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was not asked whether it was a good or a bad example, but whether there was a precedent. The Act I refer to is the Housing Act, known as the "Wheatley Act." Then the hon. Member asked me whether the intention referred to in the Clause is the intention of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The purpose-of asking the House in Committee, and subsequently the House itself, to assent to this new Clause is that there shall be an expression of the intention of Parliament as a whole, including the hon. Member himself.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk (Sir E. Turton) say in his speech—I think he is chairman of the County Councils Association—that they trust the Government. I submit to him that this Clause has been put in just because they do not trust the Government. The hon. Baronet who is the chairman of the County Councils Association, and the body over which he presides, are afraid that under the new system of block grants they are not going to get new money for new services, and they have been able to extract the promise contained in this Clause. I want to ask the hon. Baronet, if he is afraid that under the new system of block grants money will not be forthcoming for services which may be developed in the future, what reliance can be put on a promise of this sort? I do not think the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) was at all too severe. This is absolutely scandalous.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The learned Attorney-General says that this Clause is in the nature of a declaration; a "Declaration of Rights," I suppose, issued by this Government. There is already evidence that they will have to put this to the test, and that there will have to be a test of their sincerity or insincerity before this Parliament rises. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. By reason of the new public health services and other services, it has become necessary to grant some sort of relief for another class. It will be necessary to give Government relief to a large number of traders in this country who will become bankrupt as the result of the effects of the new assessments under the Bating and Valuation Act, 1925. The Bill proposes to give relief to the coal trade, among others, in connection with the export of bunker coal. The Government, in reply to questions put in this House, has said repeatedly that the total relief for the coal industry in that direction will be about 1s. a ton. In South Wales, it will work out at about 7½d. per ton on the carried coal, and at about 5id. per ton by way of rebate by the 75 per cent; reduction of rates. Already, as a result of the new assessments, it has been found that colliery rates will go up 3d. or 4d. in
the ton on the total output, so that at least one-third of the so-called relief under the present Bill will be taken away before they have been given as the result of the provisions made by this Government. Everybody concerned in local government is aware that the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 is simply the financial foundation of this Measure, and that this is the logical fulfilment of that Act. The Government will have to put this declaration to the test immediately, within the next few weeks, or they will be bombarded by colliery companies and owners of industrial hereditaments with regard to the effect of the new increased assessments whittling away a substantial proportion of what is to be given under this Bill.

Mr. KELLY: I am wondering why it has been found necessary in this case only as far as the local authorities are concerned to speak of the intentions of the Government. The learned Attorney-General stated that he wished to put into this Clause what was the intention of the whole House. Although we on this side of the House may have a very high regard for the learned Attorney-General, I do not think that he is entitled to speak for us when dealing with industrial matters or matters concerning a local authority. I cannot understand the County Councils' Association accepting this new Clause as being of any satisfaction to them in view of the doubts which they have had on this point. It does not seem to me that this Clause gives them what they desire. It only says that the intention of the Government is that if there is imposed by Act of Parliament, by the Ministry of Health, some further service which entails further expenditure, then Parliament should give consideration to the greater costs imposed upon them. There are many services in the counties and throughout the whole country which have not yet been fully developed. Such services are being developed now, and if, by such development, a greater expenditure is imposed by local authorities upon their districts, then this intention certainly will not cover that, because such expenditure will not be imposed by the Ministry of Health.

Sir E. TURTON: We have considered that point, and we have stated that we are fully safeguarded in regard to the
advance of any existing service. We have got a Clause in the Bill to that effect.

Mr. KELLY: If the Government have put that into the body of the Bill, they certainly have not put it into their intention, and it just shows how carefully hon. Members opposite have to watch their own Government. The hon. Baronet is relying upon the honour of the promise made to him. What does this carry with it? There is an assurance here that, if enormous expenditure is imposed by Parliament at any time upon a local authority, Parliament is bound to pay regard to the manifesto which is issued by this Government on the eve of a General Election. It almost looks as if this is one of the paragraphs that we shall probably see in the manifestoes that will be issued during the next few months. Local authorities will have to rely upon the honour of future Parliaments, and I am afraid that will not carry them very far. I see no use and no necessity for this particular paragraph. I cannot understand why it was put in in this part of the Bill, when the Government have not seen fit to mention their intentions in this regard in any other part of the Bill. If the Government are beginning to issue these manifestoes as to their intentions in the matter of local authorities, we are entitled to ask what are the Government's intentions in regard to the de-rating of industry and to those people who claim to come under this Measure and whom the Government have left out. If the Government are beginning this manifesto business with regard to this Measure, they had better go the whole hog.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there is any need for me to make any further observations on this matter. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that he is doubting the intentions of future Parliaments, and I am surprised to hear that, because I have always understood that it was the hope of the hon. Gentleman and his friends that the next Government will be a Socialist Government.

Mr. KELLY: If it were, we should reverse this Measure.

Sir K. WOOD: In that event, I should myself share his anxiety as to their good
intentions. This is a declaration that in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on local authorities by the institution of a new public health or other service, it is the intention of Parliament in this Measure to meet the local authorities. Hon. Members opposite may vote against this Clause. I invite them to do so if they so desire. This Clause is being introduced at the desire of the local authorities, and J leave it to the hon. Gentleman and his friends opposite to join in this declaration.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman invites me in this way to join in this declaration. Let me put the matter to him in another way. I am not prepared to be a party to a declaration of this kind that means nothing. I feel very strongly on this point. We, on this side, would be a good deal more generous to the local authorities than are the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. Nobody on this side of the Committee would ever dream of imposing a new social service on a local authority without adequate financial recognition. In season and out of season we have been accused by hon. Members opposite of being squandermaniacs, and of wasting public money. No declaration is needed from Members on this side of the Committee. I am prepared to walk into the Lobby alone to-night. I know I shall not have to do so, but I would be prepared to walk into the Lobby alone and vote against this Clause, which is, I think, treating Parliament with contempt. There is no doubt whatever that the Clause means nothing. I would like to have asked the learned Attorney-General what the Clause means and whether it can have any operative effect at all. It has not, and hon. Members opposite know that it has not. It has arisen out of the suspicion of local authorities. It has arisen because they feel the ground slipping from under their feet, and because, in view of the new block grant system, they have, in their desperation, come to the Government and said: "Is it to be understood that if there are new duties imposed upon us, there will be new financial assistance?" Local authorities would fight to the death any new service unless they were getting satisfaction out
of it, and no Parliament could deny some measure of public assistance for a new service.
I object to this Clause, because I think it is politically dishonest. It does not mean anything. It can only mislead people; it will be regarded as a kind of pledge, when everybody knows that we cannot pledge future Parliaments. Nobody can pledge beyond this Parliament, and this is a precedent to which I take the strongest possible exception. The best example of a similar kind which the learned Attorney-General could give was one which was no analogy at all. There is no precedent for legislation of this kind. This is a new form of declaratory legislation with no meaning; it is binding on no one. I know that if Mem-

bers on this side of the Committee vote against it, they will have their views misrepresented, but we are always having our views misrepresented. I myself am becoming quite thick-skinned. If the right hon. Gentleman's speech meant anything, it meant, "Vote against this Bill at your peril. If you do, we will tell the country that you are against Government grants for these services." This threat has no influence on me at all. So far as my hon. Friends and myself are concerned, we are prepared, as a protest against this method of legislation, to go into the Lobby against this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided Ayes. 188; Noes, 96.

Division No. 140.1
AYES.
[8.15 p m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Elite, R. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
England, Colonel A
McDonnell, Coionel Hon. Angus


Atkinson, C
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macintyre, Ian


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.


Balniel, Lord
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.


Barnett, Maior Sir Richard
Forestier-Waiker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Forrest, W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Bethel, A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Coionel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Betterton, Henry B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col Rt Hon. Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Goft, Sir Park
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brass, Captain W,
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hanbury, C.
Newman, Sir R. H S. D. L. (Exeter)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harland, A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brockiebank, C. E R
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Broun, Lindsay, Major H.
Hasiam, Henry C.
Pilcher, G.


Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'J'd. Hexham)
Headiam, Lieut.-Coionel C. M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Preston, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hilts, Major John Waller
Radford, E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, Sir Walter


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, E. T.
Honkins, J. W. W.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rhys, Hon C. A. U.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hore-Rellsha, Leslie
Rice, Sir Frederick


Chapman, Sir S.
Horlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)


Clarry, Reginald George
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whiteh'n)
Ropner, Major L.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Colfox, Maior Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Geraid B.
Rye, F. G.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Conner, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
James, Lieut,-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Craia, Sir Ernest (Chester. Crewe)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crookshank, Cpt. H (Linasey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Croke, Sir Clement
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Maj Geo. F. (Samerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamh, J. O.
Smith-Caringon, Neville W.


Daviet, Dr. Vernon
Lister, Conliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, Cvril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Long, Maior Eric
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Drewe C
Louqher, Lewis
Stanley, Lieut.-Coionel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Tomlinson, R. p.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Starry-Deans, R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Waddington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Withers, John James


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchall-
Watts, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tinne, J. A.
Wells, S. R.
Maior Sir William Cope and Mr.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Groves, T.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T, W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewie


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamtord, T. W.


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Graham, D. M, (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. ( Glamorgan)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Paling.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister to pay council's contributions to voluntary associations out of sums payable as General Exchequer Grant.)

"Upon application being made to the Minister by the council of any county or county borough requesting that the contributions of the council towards the expenses of any voluntary association having as its object the promotion of public health services (including services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency, and the welfare of the blind) may be paid directly to the association out of the amount payable as the General Exchequer Grant of the council, the Minister may pay such contributions accordingly, and any sums so paid shall be deemed to have been paid as part of that grant."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is another new Clause which deals with contributions to voluntary associa-
tions, and it is introduced to meet the criticism that a voluntary association covering the whole of the country would be obliged to collect small sums from a large number of counties and county boroughs. This Clause empowers the Minister, if application is made to him by the counties and county boroughs concerned, to make one payment on behalf of the councils to the associations concerned with such services as maternity and child welfare, lunacy, mental deficiency and the welfare of the blind out of the sums payable as the general Exchequer grants to those county or county borough councils.

Mr. KELLY: The other evening we were discussing societies more particularly concerned with propaganda in relation to venereal disease. I understood that consideration was to be given to the suggestion to introduce the name of the body dealing with that question.

Sir K. WOOD: The phrase "public health services" covers that point. Earlier in the Debate, when dealing with the definition of public health services, it was stated that so far as venereal disease was concerned, there was no doubt that the association referred to would be able to have the advantage of this Bill.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question. In the Blind Persons Act, 1920, it is laid down that local authorities may do certain things on behalf of the blind, but my experience is that many local authorities are shelving their responsibility because the Act is not compulsorily upon them, and are leaving a great deal of the welfare work in connection with the blind to voluntary organisations. Is there anything in this Clause to prevent either a county council or a county borough council from making application to the Minister of Health asking him to pay to societies for the welfare of the blind a certain amount per annum, so that the local authority would thus escape scot free from their obligation?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, this Clause does not deal with that point. It deals with cases in which the local authorities concerned are willing to contribute to the work of various associations, and provides that, instead of the associations concerned having to collect small sums from each authority, the Minister shall fee empowered to make a deduction from the appropriate grant and pay the amount direct to the association.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would not this Clause be rather an encouragement to delinquent local authorities to get rid of their real responsibilities by saddling themon to a voluntary organisation? Is it not the case that in many counties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Longbottom) has said, local authorities desire to maintain what they conceive to be the best system, that is to say, a voluntary system, for certain services. My hon. Friend has suggested, and I think truly, that in that case a council would prefer to make a nice annual contribution of, say, £500 to a voluntary scheme, while their real responsibility, if they undertook the work themselves, might very well cost them £3,000. This method of working through voluntary
agencies may be, and frequently is, much more costly than a direct service would be if the county or borough council carried on the service themselves, and I am not sure whether this encouragement to a county or county borough to neglect the provision of these services themselves in favour of voluntary organisations is the best and most economical system.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is forgetting the long discussion that we had yesterday on Clause 86. I will not say whether I agree with it or not, but it is true that that criticism may be put forward with regard to the present arrangement, and it may also be put forward in regard to the percentage grant system; but under Clause 86, as amended yesterday, in conjunction with this Clause, we get this position. The services to which the hon. Member referred have to be undertaken by the authorities, and the Minister has power under Clause 86 to see that they maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress. In considering that question he will also consider the work of voluntary associations of this kind, and he will then sec whether, on the one hand, the voluntary associations are doing a certain amount of work, whether, on the other hand, the local authorities are doing a certain amount, and whether by means of both a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress is being maintained. That will be possible under the new system, and, of course, this present Clause does not take anything away from the provisions of Clause 86 and the power which has been given to the Minister in that connection.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Would my right hon. Friend say whether it is necessary for the county to make application to the Minister every year, or whether they can do so for a fixed period, or until notice of cancellation?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider what is the best arrangement. As my right hon. Friend stated the other day, it is his intention, when the Act comes into operation, to address a general communication or communications to the local authorities concerning it, and we shall in that communication, or one of them, direct attention to this Clause. I have no doubt also that in the interval we
shall consult them as to what would be the most suitable arrangement, and what, in the authorities' opinion, the system should be. My hon. Friend, who has given a great deal of time to and taken a great deal of interest in this particular matter, may rest assured that we shall have regard to the best interests of the work concerned, and to giving as much benefit as possible to everyone concerned.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Review by county councils of electoral divisions.)

(1) The council of every county, as soon as may he after completing the first general review of the circumstances of districts wholly or partly within the county made or treated as hvaing been made by them under this Part of this Act, shall review the electoral divisions of the county and shall consider whether any alteration of the boundary of any such division, or of the number of county councillors and electoral divisions in the county, is desirable, and shall forthwith, after the review is completed and before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, or such later date as the Secretary of State may in any case allow, send to the Secretary of State a report of the review, together with proposals as to the alterations (if any) which they consider desirable, and any such proposals shall have effect as if they had been a representation made to the Secretary of State under Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1888.

Provided that if in the case of any county the Secretary of State is satisfied after considering such representations, if any, as may be made by local authorities in the county, that it is unnecessary to make any such review as aforesaid, he may direct that this section shall not apply as respects that county.

(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State, either on the representation of a local authority or otherwise and after consultation with such authorities as appear to him to be interested, that there is a prima facie case for making any such alteration as aforesaid and that the county council have failed to make a proposal for to purpose within the time allowed, the Secretary of State shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the county a notice that he proposes to make the alteration and that a copy of his proposals is open to inspection at a specified place and that representations with respect thereto may be made to him within six weeks after the publication of the notice, and the Secretary of State, after considering any representations which may be made within that period, and if any objections are made by any local authority and are not withdrawn, after holding a local inquiry with respect to the
proposals to which the objections relate, may make an order effecting the alteration or such modified alteration as appears to him to be expedient.

(3) An order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as maybe after it is made.—[Sir K. Wood]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will remember the discussion on this subject which was raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton). This Clause provides for the redistribution of the county electoral divisions immediately after the review of the local administrative areas has been completed. An Amendment was moved with the same object in Committee on, I think, Clause 39 of the Bill, and withdrawn on the understanding that a new Clause for this purpose would be put down. The review is to be made by the 1st April, 1932, or such later date as may be approved by the Minister of Health, and the county council must submit their scheme of new electoral divisions by the 1st January, 1933, or such later date as may be approved by the Secretary of State. The scheme which I am now proposing will thus be settled and come into force in time for the triennial elections in 1934. The Secretary of State may, however, relieve a county council from making the review —because we do not want unnecessary reviews to be made—if he is satisfied that the existing distribution is satisfactory, and of course, in case of default, provision is made similar to that in Clause 39 relating to Local Government areas, and the representations of any local authorities or counties will be considered. I think the Clause meets the wishes that were expressed in various parts of the Committee.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of law with respect to declaring roads to be county roads.)

(1) The grounds on which an application by an urban district council can be made under Section 15 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, for an order declaring a road to be a county road shall include the ground that the road is a road situate in a part of the urban district which is of a rural character.

(2) If on an application made under Section 15 of the said Act a county council refuse to make an order declaring the highway which is the subject of the application to be a county road, or fail for a period of six months after the application to make such an order, or if, having made such an order, the county council refuse or fail to confirm the order within six months of the making thereof, the applicant authority may appeal to the Minister of Transport who may, after considering any representations made by the county council, and, if the council SO require, after holding a local inquiry, make an order declaring the highway to be a county road.

(3) An order of the Minister of Transport under this section shall have effect as if it were an order made and confirmed by the county council under the said Section 15, and shall come into operation on such date as may be fixed by the order.—[Colonel Ashley]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will recollect that on former Clauses of the Bill it was decided that all scheduled roads, and indeed all roads in rural areas, should go over to the county council, and it was also decided that assistance to the upkeep of these roads vesting in the county council should be given through the block grant. There are a certain number of urban councils in the country who have part of their urban area really rural in character. This proposed new Clause seeks to remove a possible or probable injustice to them, namely, that under the Bill as it stands they would be left with these scheduled roads as a charge on their ratepayers, whereas, the maintenance grant of 25 per cent. having ceased to be paid and being transferred to the block grant, the block grant would go to the county council, and the urban council, with the same roads, purely rural in character, would have lost their 25 per cent. and would not get their block grant, so that they would be in the unfortunate position of having roads to maintain and no money with which to keep them up other than the money provided by their ratepayers. So this new Clause says that, if an urban council with areas in it which are rural in character makes an application to the county council to take over those roads, the county council shall, if the Minister of Transport declares them to be county
roads, take them over, maintain them and pay for them, of course, out of the money of the block grant.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I should like to express my acknowledgment to the Minister for this Clause, which almost altogether covers an Amendment later in the Paper which I hope to move on behalf of the non-county boroughs. It embodies a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The only point on which I am a little doubtful is how far the Amendment is limited by the provision laid down in Subsection (1). Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain that.

Colonel ASHLEY: It means what it says. The area should be rural in character and the roads would generally be what are called scheduled roads, that is, roads receiving the grant of 25 percent. as most of the same sort of roads were receiving 25 per cent. under the district councils. What we and my hon. Friend want to avoid is these urban councils having to keep up roads whereas the county council gets the money that ought to go to the district.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. —(Agreements between county councils and urban district councils with respect to unclassified roads.)

"As from the appointed day, a county council may by agreement with the council of any urban district within the county undertake, in consideration of such payments as may be agreed, the maintenance, repair, and improvement of any unclassified road within the urban district, and any road with respect to which such an agreement is for the time being in force shall be vested in the county council, and that council and the urban district council, respectively, shall have in regard to it the same functions as they would have if it were a county road."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a purely voluntary Clause. If any of these smaller urban district councils find that, owing to the provisions of this Bill, their first and second class roads are vested in the county council and they are left with a negligible quantity, two or three or five
miles, of unclassified roads to maintain, they shall be empowered to go to the county council and say, "Will you maintain these roads for us and we will pay for them?" It will enable them to avoid the expense of a separate staff.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of valuation lists on or after appointed day.)

(1) As from the appointed day a reduction or increase in the value of any hereditament in the county of London occasioned in the course of any year by that hereditament having become or ceased to be an agricultural, industrial, or freight transport hereditament shall, for the purposes of Section forty-seven of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, be a ground for making and sending to the assessment committee a provisional list and for making a requisition for such a list to be made and sent, and in relation to any provisional list or requisitionmade on such ground as aforesaid that Act shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications, that is to say: —

(a) a provisional list or requisition therefor made on the ground that a hereditament has become an agricultural, industrial, or freight transport hereditament shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed; and
(b) a provisional list shall not be made on the ground that a hereditament has become an agricultural, industrial, or freight transport hereditament unless a requisition therefor has been made by the owner or occupier of the hereditament.

(2) As from the appointed day, no proposal lor the amendment of a valuation list on the ground that a hereditament ought to be shown therein as an industrial or freight transport hereditament or ought to be omitted therefrom (or while the first new valuation list is in force shown therein) as being an agricultural hereditament shall be made under Section thirty-seven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, by any person except the owner or occupier of the hereditament, and every such proposal shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

(3) Sub-section (10) of Section thirty-seven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925 (which determines the date as from which amendments in valuation lists made under that Section are to have effect), shall be amended by the addition thereto of the following proviso, that is to say:—

Provided also that in the case of an amendment made on or after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, by reason of any hereditament having become or ceased to be an agricultural, industrial, or freight transport hereditament, the amendment shall have
effect only as from the date when the hereditament became or ceased to be such a hereditament.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, no hereditament shall, for the purposes of any valuation list which will come into force after the appointed day, be treated as an agricultural hereditament, industrial hereditament, or freight transport hereditament unless it was so treated for the purposes of the last preceding valuation list except upon a claim that it ought to be so treated being made to the rating authority by the owner or occupier of the hereditament in the prescribed form which shall be supplied by the rating authority on the demand of the owner or occupier of any hereditament in their area.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, together with the one that immediately follows it, is intended to replace Clause 56, which was left out of the Bill, and to give effect to an undertaking to the effect that, in calculating losses on account of rates for purposes of the grant, allowance will be made for all properties entitled to relief on 1st October, 1929. Clause 56 was omitted because local authorities were anxious about the rate at which claims for altering the list were coming in, and they. were anxious lest it should be found that the list would not be completed by 1st October. Therefore, that Clause having been omitted, this Clause and the next, together with an Amendment to Schedule 9, are intended to give effect to the Minister's undertaking. The London and the provincial practices are different. In London it is not provided that there shall be any alteration of quinquennial lists except on certain conditions. In the provinces on the other hand, an alteration in the Valuation List may be applied for at any time, and there are different provisions in the two codes as to the time from which an alteration in the list takes effect. The first Sub-section of this Clause deals with London and the second and third with the provinces, and the fourth provides that the application of the ratepayer is to be a condition of obtaining the relief given by the Act of Parliament. The object of the Clauses, of course, is to provide that the calculation of the new block grant shall be facilitated in accord-
ance with the condition of things on 1st October, 1929, and therefore the Clause says that an alteration in the Valuation List, though effected after 1st October, 1929, shall date back to that date.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Adjustment of reduced and unreduced rateable value after expiration of standard year.)

Where a valuation list in force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, is amended with respect to any hereditament on the ground that it was or was not on that date an agricultural, industrial, or freight transport hereditament, then, whether or not the amendment has under this Act retrospective effect for other purposes, the reduced and unreduced rateable value of the hereditament shall, if

(a) in the County of London the provisional list by which the amendment was made was sent to the assessment committee before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty, or sent to them in compliance with a requisition served on the rating authority before that date; or
(b) elsewhere, the proposal for the amendment was served on the rating authority or, as the case may be, notified to the occupier or owner of the hereditament before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty;

be ascertained for the purposes of all the provisions of this Act, except Section 92 thereof, as if the amendment had been made immediately before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to dis-qualification for pensions under) 9 and. 10 Geo. V., c. 102, and 15 and 16 Geo. V., c. 70.)

"On and after the appointed day a person who has become an inmate of any Poor Law institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment shall not, so long as he continues to require such treatment, be disqualified, on the ground only that he is such an inmate, for receiving or continuing to receive an old age pension under the Old Age Pension Acts, 1908 to 1924, or under the Widows'. Orphans', and Old Ago Contributory Pensions Act, 1923, and accordingly Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, and paragraph I of the Third Schedule to the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, shall have effect as if the words "during the period
of three months from the date on which he becomes such an inmate if he," were omitted therefrom, and as if after the words "so long" there were inserted the words "as he."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a matter that was raised on the Second Reading, and the Clause is directed to securing uniformity as regards the payment of old age pensions between the inmates of a Poor Larw institution and the inmates of a hospital provided by a county council or otherwise, and the brief effect is to provide that, so long as a person who has entered a Poor Law institution for the purpose of receiving medical or surgical treatment continues to require that treatment, he shall not be disqualified, by being an inmate, for the receipt of an old age pension. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) raised the point on the Second Reading. We shall always remember his very signal contribution to our discussion. My right hon. Friend expressed his intention at the time to deal with the point.

Mr. GROVES: Will this Clause prevent a board of guardians from appropriating pensions due to the people who enter these institutions?

Sir K. WOOD: That does not arise on this new Clause.

Mr. GROVES: Yes, it does. In West Ham it is assumed that people who enter these institutions for surgical and medical treatment are not barred from getting their old age pensions, but the fact remains that the guardians take the pensions. This seems to be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister to strengthen the Bill and to provide that it shall be impossible for the appointed guardians of West Ham to appropriate pensions properly paid to people who go into their institutions for surgical or medical treatment.

Sir K. WOOD: Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of the question which has been raised by the hon. Member, it is a matter for general legislation, and does not arise in the course of this scheme. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot deal with it in connection with this new-Clause.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) cannot be dealt with in this Clause, but I do not believe that the guardians have any right to appropriate pensions of this kind. If the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member are true of what happens in West Ham, a question might very well be asked in this House, and the attention of the Minister might be called to the matter. There is probably some misunderstanding. I do not believe that the guardians can legally appropriate an old age pension or a widow's pension, or any payment of that kind. If it has been done, it has been done illegally. On its merits, the new Clause is very satisfactory, except that there is no definition of medical treatment. Take the case of an old woman who goes into the workhouse. She may receive medical treatment and nursing treatment so long as she is in the institution. She may be attended by a medical officer and may be nursed by a skilled nurse all the time. Therefore she is in receipt of medical treatment, and I hope the right hon Gentleman will be prepared to assume that the pension will be payable, not withstanding that the old lady is there for a considerable time, in fact until she dies. The longer she remains there the more medical treatment and more nursing she will receive. In the classical words of the Treasury this may be opening a serious door, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will concede the point which I have raised.

Mr. GROVES: My right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has suggested that a question might be put in the House. The last question which I put to the Minister of Health elicited the information that there were 117 cases of old age pensioners who had been taken into Poor Law medical institutions within the Union of West Ham, where pensions had been taken by the guardians. I would ask the Committee to realise the position of an old person who is ill and awaiting an immediate operation, and who is subject to a visit from the relieving officer, who commands and demands the old age pension book. That is a case where the book is obtained by intimidation. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make this new Clause so strong
that no guardians, whether appointed or ordinary guardians, shall have the right to demand an old age pension book from any person who enters an institution for medical or surgical treatment

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Special provisions as to functions of Poor Law authorities in respect of infant life protection and vaccination.)

"As from the appointed day the following provisions shall have effect with respect to functions relating to infant life protection and vaccination formerly discharged by Poor Law authorities: —

(a) Functions under Part I of the Children Act, 1908, shall, elsewhere than in the county of London, be discharged by the councils of counties and county boroughs as functions under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, except that where the council of a district have established a maternity and child welfare committee the said functions shall, in that district, be discharged by the council of the district and not by the count3' council; and
(b) Functions relating to vaccination shall be discharged by the councils of counties and county boroughs as functions relating to public health."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is to make special provision for the functions of Poor Law authorities in regard to infant life protection and vaccination. I do not think the Committee will object to adopting the Clause, which is necessary in order to ensure that the functions in regard to infant life protection and vaccination are imposed upon the appropriate authorities and exercised by the appropriate committees of those authorities. These functions are at present discharged by boards of guardians under Part I of the Children Act, 1908, and the Vaccination Act, respectively. In the absence of any special provisions, both these functions would be transferred to county and county borough councils on the appointed day and administered by the Public Assistance Committees. Therefore, as regards infant life protection it is proposed that the exercise of this function in all cases should be undertaken by the maternity and child welfare authorities. It is thought that
it would be more satisfactory to give the work to those authorities who employ health visitors, the bulk of whose work relates to children under five years of age. As regards London, it is not necessary to make any special provision, since the London County Council and the City Corporation are already authorities under Part I of the Children Act, 1908. In Clause 52 of the Bill it will be found that there is power given to the London County Council to transfer their functions to the metropolitan borough councils, subject to the making of the necessary application to the Minister.
As regards vaccination, the duties of boards of guardians under the Vaccination Act are in the nature of public health functions, and have nothing whatever to do with the relief of the poor. The effect of paragraph (b) of the new Clause will be to secure that the functions relating to vaccination shall be discharged by the county and county borough councils as public health functions, and all matters relating thereto are referred to their health committees, instead of to the public assistance committee. Special provision for vaccination work in London is contained in Clause 15 (f), which provides that this work shall be transferred from the boards of guardians to the common council of the City of London and to the councils of the metropolitan borough councils, instead of to the London County Council. This provision is in accordance with the wishes of the county council and the borough councils. I think the Committee will agree that the proposals in the Clause constitute the best allocation of this work that could be devised, and give a guarantee for the efficiency of the work in future.

Mr. GROVES: I find myself in a position now to support the Minister for, I think, the first time in my life. I think it is a very good step to hand over the question of vaccination to the local authorities. Experience has proved that vaccination is a frost. It has certainly not prevented smallpox, I feel sure that when the function of vaccination has been handed over to the local authorities, composed of intelligent men and women who are interested in public health, it will be a step which bids fair to suppress rather than to encourage vaccination in this country. I welcome this provision.
So far as our borough is concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do what we can to refuse to impose this fallacy upon the people. If people who are grown up wish to be vaccinated, let them be vaccinated, but I object to impose vaccination upon people in order to satisfy the medical profession. It has been a retrograde step in the past. Under the new provision local authorities will be able to apply sanitation and to abolish vaccination. I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Adaptation of enactments relating to the adjustment of parochial balances.)

"If, as respects any parish, the period for the making of parochial adjustments limited by paragraph 5 of the Seventh Schedule to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, has been extended in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph, the sum, if any, remaining due on the appointed day from that parish to the rating authority in respect of any such adjustment as aforesaid shall be taken to be such sum as may be certified by the district auditor to be such part of the amount actually so due as bears to that amount the same proportion as the reduced rateable value of the parish bears to the unreduced rateable value thereof."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is rather a technical matter, dealing with the adaptation of enactments relating to the adjustment of what we call parochial balances, and it is inserted in order to avoid a difficulty which might otherwise arise in consequence of derating. In the appropriate Schedule of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, it is provided that adjustments are to be made by the rating authorities to secure that each parish in the rating area is to take advantage of its credit balance or to make good its debit balance, as the case may be. The adjustment;! are to be made within three years from the 1st April, 1927, but the Minister is permitted under that enactment to extend the time.
The adjustment is effected by means of a differential rating and the sums of which account is to be taken in making the adjustment are to be certified by the district auditor. Most of these adjustments are now completed, but in some
cases where there are debit balances the Minister has found it necessary to extend the period up to 1935 and in certain cases up to the year 1937. The effect of de-rating will, of course, be to increase the poundage of the additional rate necessary to produce the remainder of the sum certified by the auditor, and it is thought, in response to representations made by various authorities, that a case has been made out for reducing this sum so far as it remains unpaid on the ground that the deficiency will be made up by the new Exchequer grants. This Clause accordingly provides that as regards any sum not discharged by the appointed day the district auditor may certify a reduced amount bearing !;he same ratio to the sum outstanding as the reduced rateable value bears to the unreduced rateable value at the appointed day. With this explanation the Committee will be satisfied that justice is being done.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rise to make only one observation. I shall read with very great interest to-morrow the precise phraseology of the Parliamentary Secretary as to possible rate increase in poundage. He knows that I have taken a great interest in de-rating on the yield of a penny in the £, and the last sentence he has uttered may be of material assistance to myself and other hon. Members who have taken an interest in the effect of de-rating.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving as to highways repairable by persons other than highway authorities.)

"Nothing in this Act with respect to main roads or county roads shall affect the liability of any person or body of persons not being a highway authority to maintain and repair any highway or part of a highway or, subject as hereinafter provided, affect any exemption from a highway rate granted under Section 33 of the Highway Act, 1835, or under any other enactment, as continued by any scheme in force under Section 64 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925.

Provided that for the purpose of securing the continued operation of any such exemption as aforesaid

(a) the council of every county in which any such exemption is in force shall submit to the Minister a scheme making provision for the purpose aforesaid; and
(b) the provisions contained or incorporated in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of
1062
Sub-section (2) of the said Section 64 and in the proviso to such Sub-section with respect to the making, approval, and effect of schemes to be made thereunder shall apply to schemes to be made under this Section with the substitution of references to county councils for references to rating authorities."—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is required in consequence of the existence of an obligation on account of the maintenance of certain roads, an obligation known as ratione penuriae. It transfers certain road functions to the county councils, one of which is to release people who are under an obligation to maintain roads from their liability. The second part of the Clause deals with a not dissimilar subject. Certain persons under an old Highways Act or certain local Acts have enjoyed an exemption from rates in consideration of fulfilling a local liability to repair roads. It was necessary in the Eating Act of 1925 to provide some sort of scheme to bring that old system into relation with the new rating system and this part of the new Clause merely proposes to use Section 64 of the Rating Act of 1925 for the purpose of adapting that old system to this Bill also.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Travelling Expenses.)

"(1) As from the appointed day it shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be lawful for the council of any county to defray any expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee thereof to which this Section applies in travelling to and from meetings of the council or committee or in travelling by direction of the council or committee for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee.

(2) No expenses which a county council have, apart from this Section, power to defray shall be defrayed under this Section, and this Section shall not affect any such power.

(3) No expenditure by a county council under this Section shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of any sum payable to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(4) This Section shall apply to any committee of a county council appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole
area for which the county council is charged with those functions, and shall also apply to any sub-committee or joint committee so appointed as if it were a committee of the council.

(5) In this Section the expression "subcommittee" means a sub-committee of a committee of a county council, and the expression "joint committee" means a joint committee or joint board appointed by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a county borough or with a court of quarter sessions."—[Sir E. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
9.0 p.m.
In moving this New Clause, I must point out that it is a proposal which has been asked for for some years by practically every county council in England and Wales. It has been before' this House on several occasions, and I once had the honour, at three o'clock in the morning, of obtaining a Second Reading for a Bill on the subject. Therefore Parliament has already approved the principle of the Clause, It is purely a permissive enactment and does not deal with sustentation allowances or loss of time. The Committee will agree that it is only fair that those who give their time—and a very great deal of time is given by members of county councils to their different duties—should be reimbursed for the expenses of attending county council meetings and the committees of the county council. It is very hard on those who have to attend joint committees with borough councils. Let me give an instance. In the North Riding of Yorkshire we are in charge of a reformatory, in conjunction with the towns of Hull and York. The representatives of Hull and York are able to receive their railway fares for attending the meetings of the joint committee for the reason that they have no auditor, but members of the county council who have to come much longer distances are unable to receive their travelling expenses. I am sure hon. Members will feel that this is an injustice and one which ought to be lemedied.
It will hardly lie in the mouth of Members of Parliament to refuse to county councillors that which they have already voted for themselves—namely, their travelling expenses in coming to perform their
duties at Westminster. May I also point out that the Scottish Bill includes a similar enactment and it has passed the Second Reading in this House. There is, therefore, no reason for me to take up much time in explaining this necessary provision but I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister of Health for putting his name to this New-Clause. It is one of the many acknowledgments we owe him for the extremely courteous way in which he has met requests of the county councils. I only desire to say how extremely obliged we are to him not only in this instance but in those many other instances in which he has come to our assistance on the points we have desired to have cleared up.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. JENKINS: I beg to move, in line 2 to leave out the words "defray any" and to insert instead thereof the words:
incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Minister in respect of travelling, time necessarily lost from ordinary employment, and other personal.
The expenses which have to be incurred by members attending county council meetings, and also the large number of committee meetings, makes it very difficult for those who have to lose time and pay in order to attend to their duties, and with the addition of work which will come on to county councils under this Bill it is going to be a very heavy burden not only for working men but for the large number of small tradesmen who are at present members of county councils to attend to their duties. It is only reasonable that the Minister should meet the reasonable expenses of members attending county councils. In my own County of Glamorgan they have to start at seven o'clock in the morning to attend the meeting of the county council at half-past 10, and they do not get back until eight o'clock at night. That is a long time to give to public service, and those people who depend upon their weekly earnings find it very difficult indeed to meet the expense of attending the county council. They are really useful men who are devoting their spare time to the public service. When men are prepared to do that, to delve into all these questions and to give their
services at great sacrifice, they deserve recognition. The Minister would only be dealing fairly with them if he accepted the reasonable proposals of the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter with a view to accepting the Amendment. He certainly has gone some distance to meet the wishes of Members in all parts of the Committee, but in view of the tremendous amount of work imposed upon county councillors, the time has arrived when, unless some payment is made for the time lost in performing the ordinary dutie3 of their office, a large number of highly capable local representatives will be prevented from carrying on this public work, particularly when this Bill has become an Act. I know that in the West Riding of Yorkshire many county councillors have to travel from 30 to 35 miles to each meeting that they attend. That journey, the time occupied in their public duties and the return journey, make it impossible for them to carry on their normal employment. Unless some payment is to be made for their loss of time, obviously these people will be prevented from continuing their public work.
There will be additional duties imposed on county councillors as a result of the passing of this Bill. The counties are taking over the whole of the rural roads and all Class 1 and Class 2 roads in urban districts. The number of sub-committees is bound to increase, and attendance at the county offices for ordinary committee meetings and sub-committee meetings will involve evern more loss of time than is necessary now. The revision of the Poor Law system, the establishment of public assistance committees, and the new county guardian committees, on which two-thirds of the members must be members of the county council, will impose a tremendous amount of extra work upon county councillors. The principle has been accepted that, if we are to keep the best type of men and women to carry on the duties of county councillors, some part of their expenses must be paid. Merely to pay the travelling expenses of a county councillor who happens to be a mine worker or a farm labourer or an engine driver or a factory worker, without paying him for the loss of wages, is not going far enough. Many who are now serving will be called upon to do
one of two things—either to cease membership of the county authorities, or to neglect a good deal of the work that otherwise would he carried on by them. If one tries to visualise the position in a purely rural county, it is easy to see that, unless some financial assistance is forthcoming, none but the comparatively wealthy farmer or the country squire or those in fairly comfortable circumstances, will be able to perform the functions of a county councillor.
I know that in Yorkshire many county councillors are obliged to desert their normal employment on an average of four days in each week. It is clear that no ordinary working man, without some subsidiary source of income can afford to lose his wages for so long. The general principle has been accepted in Scotland and in Wales for years. There members of the county agricultural committees are already remunerated on a scale fixed by the counties. If it is fair to remunerate a member of a county agricultural committee, there is no justification for refusing similar payment to a member of a county education committee. We have gone even beyond that point. So far as Members of Parliament are concerned, it has been recognised that, unless one has a private income, it is quite impossible to carry out one's duties without the State coming to the assistance of the Member. That being so, it seems to me essential that the Minister should do his best to make it possible for the man or woman who has the capacity and will to perform the duties of a county councillor, to have that privilege. This question ought to be treated entirely on a non-party basis. We have universal suffrage, and all men and women are permitted to select their own local and national representatives. We ought to do the next and final thing by making it possible for those who have the capacity and the will to carry out their duties as local representatives to be removed from any position of economic distress.

Mr. WEBB: I would make an appeal to the Minister of Health. If he cannot accept the exact words of the Amendment, cannot he concede what is here desired. First of all I would call attention to the words of the new Clause that is before us. It refers to expenses necessarily incurred in travelling to and from the meetings
of the council. I have not served on the Somerset County Council but I know something about the conditions and I know that it is not possible, with the railway service which Somerset enjoys, to go from various parts of the county to the place where the county council meets which, I believe, is Taunton—

Sir E. TURTON: Weston-super-Mare.

Mr. WEBB: —and return within the same day unless you have a motor car. Consequently, those members of the county council who do not possses motor cars are obliged to spend a night away from home when they attend a meeting. That may not be the only case. Somerset, though it has many other excellent qualities, is not the largest county. There are other counties where it would be impossible to attend county council meetings from a distant part of the county, and return in the same day, by rail. The expense of a night's lodging in a hotel would necessarily be incurred by anyone who did not fly or did not possess a motor car. Therefore I assume* that this proposal will cover hotel expenses where necessary. I mention this fact, because I want to bring home to the Committee the extraordinarily great increase in expenditure which is going to be incurred under this Bill. County councils will have to meet, not once a quarter, but in all probability once a week, or at any rate much more frequently than at present.
Hitherto we have maintained a property qualification for membership of local authorities. We have not called it that, but, by paying nothing towards the expenses, we have made it impossible for anyone to serve on a county council who has not private means. When the Local Government Act of 1888 was brought in, Mr. Broadhurst said that nobody could serve on the Norfolk County Council who had not control of a horse and gig. Now we have reached a point where it is not possible, in many cases, for anybody who has not control of a motor car. More than that, it means that we have—I will not say deliberately, but in effect—confined the membership of county councils, with the exception of a few in industrial areas recently, to persons possessing what may be termed a property qualification. Is anybody prepared to say that we
should maintain a property qualification for membership of county councils? When this Bill becomes an Act, when the county councils take over the business of the Poor Law guardians and much other work, are we prepared to advocate the maintenance of a property qualification? Are we prepared to say that we mean definitely to exclude from membership of the county councils anyone who cannot afford to give up two-thirds or half his time without remuneration? Are we prepared to say that members should receive only if the council agrees—for it is to be optional—the bare travelling expenses, which would not even include the cost of meals, while away from home on county council service?
If that view were to be taken by the majority of Members, I should be inclined to call it rather mean; but I hope the majority of the Committee are not going to take that view. In view of the fact that the Government have been induced already to agree—at the instance, I suppose, of the County Councils Association—to allow those members who are sitting with what I call a property qualification, to be reimbursed for the expenses to which they are put, I cannot help thinking that it would be selfishness on their part deliberately to maintain that property qualification as against people who are less well OFF than themselves. I put it to them that when they are recouped for their own travelling expenses, it will not be a gentlemanly thing to seek to exclude from these county councils persons of lesser means. The Ministry of Health, I know, has not been accustomed to the payment of members of local authorities: but the Ministry of Health is no longer the Ministry of Local Government, and there is a great deal of local government which is not under the Ministry of Health. Other Ministries have already reached the point of paying travelling expenses, and have even gone beyond that point.
The case of county agricultural committees has been mentioned. In that case, not only are travelling expenses paid, but payment is also made for loss of remunerative time, as it is called'. That is under the Ministry of Agriculture. Then there is the Ministry of Pensions. I am not sure what the system is now, but, at any rate, in the earlier stages of the local pension committees, payment was made for loss of remunerative
time. Under the Ministry of Labour the rota committees and the courts of referees are paid for loss of remunerative time. Thus you have three Ministries, all dealing with local authorities which already adopt this principle. Surely the Minstry of Health which is the fourth Ministry dealing with local authorities, does not want to make a final rally on this narrow point, when these other Ministries have given it away with popular approval and without any objection being taken to their action.
I appeal to the Minister to accept an Amendment which would bring his Department into line with the other Ministries I have cited, and remove this property qualification which, as things stand, he is deliberately maintaining for the county councils over the greater part of the country. I ask him to make a gesture which will be more in conformity with popular feeling than to pay the actual travelling expenses of those people who can afford to attend the county councils while refusing payment for remunerative time to those people who have no means of livelihood which would enable them to attend the meetings otherwise.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In very dulcet and seductive tones, the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to make some ex hypothesi suggestions regarding the Amendment before us. There is a very considerable difference between the purpose of the new Clause to which we have given a Second Reading, and the Amendment. The proposition to pay travelling expenses to members of county councils is a. new feature.

Mr. WEBB: In the county councils but not elsewhere.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the point. I say it is a new feature that the members of county councils should be given their travelling expenses. I have put my name to this new Clause because I feel that in the changed circumstances of the county councils brought about by the Bill, it is a reasonable request on the part of the county councils that they should have these travelling expenses allowed; and I am glad to have been able to meet the hon. Baronet, the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton), on this and other occasions which he has
so generously recognised. It is perfectly true that under the provisions of this Bill the work of county councils will be considerably increased in future. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that they will have to meet every week. I rather doubt that being necessary, and I should be very much astonished if that were the immediate result of the Bill, but I do think it will be necessary for them, if they are to carry out the hew duties imposed upon them, to -meet more often than once a quarter. Besides the council itself, there are meetings of committees and subcommittees. Seeing that the distances are great, and that there is this increased work, I think it quite reasonable to say that those expenses should be allowed.
But when we come to paying not only travelling expenses, but for lost time as well, it seems to me we are in a different atmosphere altogether. All the arguments which have appeared to me as differentiating the conditions in a county from those in a district or borough in respect of travelling expenses, are inapplicable when you come to deal with the question of broken time, because a man who is a member of a council in a borough or local district loses time when he is doing his public work just the same as the member of a county council. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely there can be no dispute about that. A man who is doing public work cannot in the time that he is doing it be doing his private work. [HON. MEMBERS: "In the evening."] The meetings are not all in the evenings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Most of them are."] Hon. Members must allow me to have some slight knowledge on this subject as I have been a member of a local authority for a long time. There are very few of them who work in the evenings. The argument which hon. Members use to advocate that broken time should be paid for in the case of county councils would apply with equal force to members of borough councils or district councils. I am quite sure hon. Members would like to see broken time paid for in all districts, but logically you could not stop at county councils, and you would have to pay borough councils. There is no reason why you should stop there if you once begin, and, therefore, Members who are asked to vote
for payment for broken time for county councils must bear in mind that it carries with it absolutely no possibility of avoiding payment for broken time on other bodies.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite says there is a property qualification, and suggests that it is very ungentlemanly for anybody to attempt to maintain that property qualification. I deny that the nonpayment for broken time constitutes a property qualification, and I prove it by pointing to the numerous cases where there are very large numbers of working men upon borough councils to-day. In many cases they are actually in a majority, and if that can be so, it shows that the loss of working time has not prevented them from doing these services in boroughs. I say there is no difference in this respect between boroughs and counties. The two things are just the same, and if you are losing time doing public work in the county council you are equally losing it in a borough. The fact that that does not prevent a working man from being returned and doing work in a borough is proof that it is not a property qualification. It is very creditable to those who are making some sacrifice, but I do want to point out that this sacrifice is not confined to working people, and that of the people who are performing these duties there are very few who do not incur some pecuniary sacrifice in taking up public work.
That is one of the things to which we are accustomed in this country and it would be a great pity to weaken what, I think, is one of the strong points of our system of local or even Parliamentary Government. In the case of Members of Parliament, of course, it is obviously different. There it is not a case of one or two days a week, travelling a certain distance, doing a certain amount of work and going home again. It means going to another town, means whole-time work and complete absence from home and maintaining in many cases two establishments—a home in a man's native town where his family resides, and some accommodation for himself in London. That is one of the differentiations in the case of Members of Parliament, and as for the case that the right hon. Gentleman has adduced of certain committees acting with other Ministries, that is not
really on all fours with the case we are discussing now. Those are cases of ad hoc committees where really there is practically no attraction to persons to undertake work of that kind. The case is quite different from that of a local authority to which many people aspire, because it is a position which is recognised as one of dignity and responsibility, and in which it is a credit to represent a constituency. That in itself constitutes an inducement to many people to make sacrifices, and it differentiates the case entirely from the other case. If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean a very drastic change in the whole character of our local government, and would to a certain extent professionalise our local government. I am bound to say that while I agree that the payment of travelling expenses stands in a different category and may fairly be justified, the payment for broken time is in a different position altogether, not merely in degree, but in kind, and is one for which no sufficient reason has yet been adduced.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the Minister has shown a little less than his usual knowledge of local government. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister has answered the argument of my right hon. Friend. it is no reply to say that your courts of referees, local pensions committees and bodies of that kind are merely ad hoc committees, and therefore there is no honour attaching to membership of those bodies and that such public service is different in character and quality from that of a local authority. In Scotland members of education committees have this payment already. Members of Education authorities there have this payment for broken time for which we are asking now. Why should it be withheld from the equally thrifty people south of the Tweed? If it has been accepted in one case, clearly it ought to be accepted in another. Let me put to the Committee what will be the effect of this Clause on county councils. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there would be increased duties. It is true he is now to pay travelling expenses, but, as a matter of fact, it is going to make it harder for people who have no means to serve on county councils, and they are going to be worse off than before. I
can quote innumerable cases where it is not the travelling expense but maintenance and the loss of wages that are the real burden, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman agrees, this will increase county council work, then the effect of that will be to increase the disparity that there now is between the well-to-do person and the poor person on the county council; and, so far from this levelling up the matter, it will make the situation much worse.
Then the right hon. Gentleman used a most astonishing argument. He said the town councils have not got it, that in this Amendment they are not asking for it, and that the case of the town councils and the county councils is on all fours. That, if I may say so, is the merest nonsense. There are far more borough councils in England and Wales meeting in the evening than the right hon. Gentleman recognises, but even where they do not, you have to remember that the bulk of these people live on the doorstep, that they can be at the town hall within a quarter of an hour or even less from leaving their work, and that the amount of time that is lost, even where a council and its committees meet in the daytime, in the case of the boroughs is infinitesimal compared with the loss of time of a man who has to travel a long distance to a county council.
Moreover, it is not, perhaps, commonly realised by hon. Members opposite that in very large numbers of cases these men's expenses are met either by their trade union or by the local Labour party. That is possible in the towns. The trade union movement is much stronger in the towns and has a larger membership, and the trade union branch is more able to do this kind of work. The local Labour parties, broadly speaking, are stronger in the boroughs, and able to bear the burden, but that is not so in the counties. In the great county areas, where trade union organisation and political organisation are not as strong—and this is purely a question of Labour representatives—the burden is over great, and it is utterly impossible for a working-class representative to stand for a county council unless he is able to get help from somewhere or to make sacrifices out of all proportion to the sacrifices that are made by better-to-do people.
As a matter of fact, this payment of travelling expenses alone does mean a
property qualification. I am not denying that all members of local authorities have to sacrifice both time and money, but my point is that, broadly speaking, the sacrifice is the greater the poorer the public representative, and that whereas a well-to-do person may not feel the additional financial burden of meals away from home, and whereas in most cases he is not earning any less, that is not a case of hardship in the sense of the ordinary manual worker, whose expenditure on meals may not be large, but is relatively a heavier burden on him than on the well-to-do member of the county council; and most of these people, it must be remembered, actually do lose working time. One of the great difficulties which members of my party have in their local government activities is the difficulty of finding people who can get off from work to attend, because in many cases it is impossible for them to do so, and unless there is some recompense for them, it is economically impossible for them to face the added burden.
The right hon. Gentleman's last argument was that it would professionalise local government. That is precisely the argument used by the party opposite against the payment of Members of this House, which, in a sense, has professionalised Parliamentary government. I am not complaining of that. I have never been ashamed to declare myself a professional politician. That is my trade, and I am not so terrified of professional politicians as are many hon. Members opposite, but it is absurd to pretend that because you are going to pay the actual monetary loss which people suffer because they are members of county councils, you are going to professionalise local government. You are going to widen your area of selection, and that perhaps is what hon. Members opposite do not like. It has given them a political advantage in the past. By professionalising local government they would be enabling people of working-class origin, who would not otherwise be members of these bodies, to become members.
This Amendment has been drafted almost exactly in the terms of the Scottish Bill which may be before the House very shortly now:
to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Minister in respect of travelling.
I am not sure that that would not cover our further point, hut we have put in definitely, to make it quite clear:
time necessarily lost from ordinary employment,
which, I believe, are the words of the Education (Scotland) Act. This principle has been admitted in Scotland, and it exists to-day in Scotland. There is no argument that can be adduced from the benches opposite to justify withholding from England and Wales what Scotland now enjoys. I have always held—and I say it in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson)—that Scotland always gets most-favoured-nation treatment. Scotland has had greater advantages thrust upon it by this House than have England and Wales, and I should like the Committee to realise that this House has already legislated to give to certain people in Scotland what we are asking to-night should be given to members of county councils here. If hon. Members opposite could get rid of their general bias against Labour representation on county councils, and look at it from the point of view of political justice, I believe they would support us in this demand, which is a very modest demand to make. It is a demand that has to be satisfied if political democracy in the counties is to become a reality, and it cannot, by the mere payment of travelling expenses, become a reality in the counties. The economic deadweight against us robs us of our chances in those rural areas.
Hon. Members opposite know that that is true. They know that our difficulties are greater there than they are in the towns. We can hold our own in the towns, but in the counties, with the dice loaded against us, the only effect is to interfere with the free working of the political system. Is that what hon. Members opposite desire? Do they wish it to go forth from this Committee that to-night, when they had an opportunity of doing a measure of justice, they have made it more difficult, by the very proposals in this Bill, for working class organisations to put forward candidates'! Do they wish that to go forward from this Committee? It is not a motive of which hon. Members should be proud. They may deny that that is the motive, but the effect of it is there. The
effect of merely paying travelling expenses will be to continue the disability under which the working-class candidates suffer, and to perpetuate the advantage which the well-to-do person now enjoys over the ordinary manual worker. An opportunity like this will not arise again for some time. The only interpretation to be placed upon the opposition of the Government is that the Conservative party fear the Labour party in the counties as much as in the towns.

Mr. TINKER: The reply of the Minister of Health was not up to his usual standard. As a rule, his speeches consist of close reasoning, but to-night he used one or two rather cheap phrases. He used the argument that we would press for the payment of members of urban district and town councils. When we get an opportunity we shall press for that, but for the moment we are concerned with county councils. I will cite a case. The council on which I served altered the time of sitting from 2 o'clock to 6.30, in order to give a chance to working men to serve upon it. Another point made by the Minister was that everybody gave time to attend to these matters, but there is a difference between a man giving time when he is not losing money, and a man losing time when he is losing wages. I serve on a court of referees, and, as I have a stated salary, I receive no payment because I do not lose any money. That is right, but alongside me are miners, and as they have to lose time when they serve, they are paid for loft time. That is quite right, because they are doing a public service.
There is a vast difference between my case, my wages not being affected, and the case of the man who is losing his wages and who would not be able to attend if he did not get payment from the State for attendance. I have known cases of working men representatives on county councils who are paying money out of their own pockets in order to attend. This Bill will increase the work of the county councils, and is it unfair to ask the Government, if they want to give a chance to working men representatives, to see that they are paid for attendance? The Government regard this Bill as a first-class Measure, and if they want the confidence of the country, they must enable working men to serve on the county
councils so that they will be able to help in their administration. We appeal to the Government to recognise the fairness of the proposal and to go a little further than they have already done.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I speak on this matter with some desire to try to help because, having had considerable experience in local administration, I know of the difficulties with which working men are faced in wishing to serve on these bodies. We have heard from hon. Members of the Labour party that their real object is to get in the thin end of the wedge, so that in future they will be able to introduce payment to members of local councils of all descriptions. I suggest that that is the wrong way to go about this business. After all, the people who have to pay should be those who decide whether the payment should be made or not, and I suggest that the ratepayers generally are not prepared to agree to a measure of payment for anything beyond travelling expenses to members of local bodies. To smuggle this through in a Bill such as this is wrong and undemocratic. If the party above the Gangway wish this to be brought about, they should put it forward as part of their party programme, and get the people to decide whether they wish to agree to it or not. If the matter were put to a referendum of the people, I am satisfied that they would not agree to the payment of members of local councils, and until we can have a Measure brought in dealing with the whole subject, I shall vote against any Amendment to a Bill such as this which means introducing it by a backdoor method.

Mr. DUNCAN: I want to state my own experience by way of illustration in support of this Amendment. Nobody would begrudge the great reputation of the Minister of Health and of his father for the magnificent work they have done in Birmingham, but would the Minister suggest that he ever went short of anything as the result of his experience upon the council, either in pay or food? I happened to be elected a member of a board of guardians and a town council as a workman 33 years ago. I was only 30 years of age at the time, and I was working as a skilled engineer with wages of 35s. per week. I attended meetings of the council in the afternoon—fortunately my employer let me go—and I attended
meetings of the board of guardians as well, and it meant that I was living for five years on 25s. a week. That was my measure of sacrifice. I think that, young as I was, I did as good work on the town council and the board of guardians as anybody that was on them. I endeavoured to bring what ability I had to the public work of my native town; I am not ashamed of the work I did, and I think that the people of my own town would give me credit for it in every sense of the word. It is, however, a very cheap and easy way to treat the sacrifice that is made by people similarly placed.
There are thousands of men in this country who have done what I have done, but is it reasonable and fair that those men who take a very keen interest in the public work of the country should be asked to make this tragic sacrifice? I am sure that the Minister of Health cannot realise what sacrifice it meant to me. I had to face my wife with my 25s. a week; she knew as well as I knew that there was 10s. less going into the house, and that we had many a time to do without things to which we were entitled, because of my interest in public work. It is not fair, and it is not playing the game. If there is anything that people on the other side of the Committee claim to do, it is to play the game, and it is not really recognising the ability that there is in the people of the country to refuse this measure of help. Nobody would grudge the poorer classes of people the opportunity of taking part in the public life of the country. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. The very education being given in this country tends to fit people for this work, and is it right to begrudge the few shillings per man which this would involve?

Mr. HASLAM: I would like to ask hon. Members opposite for a little more information about this question of broken time. Does the; compensation apply only to those engaged in manual labour? On our local bodies there are people in every walk of life, and among them many who make considerable sacrifices, not only of their time and energy but sacrifices out of their pocket. Does this proposal apply to those who are engaged in trade? Are they to send in estimates of the monetary loss to which they are put when serving on a county council? If this matter is to be dealt with at all, it ought to be dealt with in a broader way than
hon. Members opposite have suggested. It is generally agreed that in future considerably more work will fall on county councils and on the individual councillors, who will be called upon to give, perhaps, twice as much time as at present, and whose out-of-pocket expenses will, perhaps, be doubled. This is a sacrifice which is felt by others than working men. I suggest that a better way of dealing with this matter would be to increase the number of county councillors. We have heard a good deal about the pro-fessionalisation of those who serve on local bodies. If members of county councils are called upon to give up so much of their time to the work that they are almost unable to pursue their ordinary duties, we are taking a very serious step in the direction of pro-fessionalisation. I contend that the real remedy is to increase the numbers of councillors, because we want to preserve the amateur aspect of our local government and to get on our local authorities people of all classes, as we have to-day. I suggest, therefore, that the real remedy for this state of things, apart from the broader treatment of the matter to which I have referred, is to increase the number of our county councillors.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: When a matter of this kind arises in the House a number of bogys are always put forward. When the question of payment of Members of Parliament was before us in 1911 certain bogys were raised. One of them was raised by the brother of the Minister of Health, and I think it may be convenient to read to the House some of the fears he expressed at that time, in order that hon. Members may realise how little they have been realised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) referred to certain persons who were in the House at that time and whom he was glad to welcome, and then went on to say that his fears were that
this will turn to the profit, as we think it has done in other countries, not of the man who comes here because he is a genuinely earnest politician, interested in these affairs, and anxious to accomplish a work, but of men who, having failed in other departments, whether as workmen with their hands or as workmen with their heads, being gifted with glib tongues and easy manners, find this the easiest and sim-
plest way of procuring a living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1911; col. 1464, Vol. 29.]
10.0 p.m.
I ventured to suggest at the time that that was a bogy and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not to-day suggest that his fear has been realised. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said just now that we ought not to go beyond payment of railway fares. He must forget that in boroughs and county boroughs an arrangement exists already whereby sustenance allowance can be paid to members who have to go on deputations to other places. This matter is very much smaller, because the only suggestion that is being made refers to county councils and not to county boroughs. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that men in the county boroughs are giving their time to public work without remuneration, and it is also true that arrangements are come to in many cases whereby it is made quite easy for them to undertake this work, the employers assisting with real public spirit. It is a very different thing for a man who is living in a borough or county borough to go home in the middle of the day and change and then go to his meeting for the rest of the day than for a man to have to leave home early in the morning to attend a meeting of the county council which will occupy him for the whole of the day.
An hon. Member asked just now to whom these proposals would apply. Surely the question to be asked in every case will be whether a member is out of pocket through the work he is doing. That is the plea upon which this proposal is being put forward. If any members are really out of pocket, I quite admit they will have a very considerable claim in this direction. I think it must be admitted, so far as this House is concerned, that there are many Members whose Parliamentary salary is almost their only income, but there are also a large number of Members who are also directors and so forth. On the one hand you have people who are obliged to come to London to discharge their Parliamentary duties and, on the other hand, people already living in London who can occupy a considerable part of their time in other duties in addition to their Parliamentary work.

Mr. HASLAM: I was asking about county councillors and not about Parliament.

Mr. WILSON: The question of fares and the question of time lost are very different things. In many cases the amount of the fare may be a small matter, whereas loss of time is a very big matter. In the view of some people this change is as revolutionary as the payment of Members of Parliament was supposed to be when that was introduced, but I do not know that anybody will now seriously suggest that that has proved to the detriment of this House or to the detriment of the individual Members.

Mr. PALING: I think the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to this Amendment are twofold. First, there was the question of professionalism; and, in the second place, the point was made that if we paid county councillors we should have to pay borough councillors, too. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to object so much to the principle as he did to the possible extensions of the system. I need not say much on the point of professionalism. Everybody knows what was said about the payment of Members of Parliament, but none of the things prophesied at that time have happened, and nobody who is speaking the truth can say that Parliament is a penny the worse for it. A reference was made by the last speaker to a speech which was made by the brother of the right hon. Gentleman in 1012. I remember when we were discussing in this House the question of payment for travelling expenses. Quite a number of people who were opposed to that raised the same kind of objections as were raised with regard to the payment of Members, but the right hon. Gentleman's brother on that occasion took a very different attitude, and gently, but none the less effectively, chided those people who were suggesting all kinds of things that would occur if travelling expenses were allowed. If the right hon. Gentleman's brother said a bad thing in 1912, he remedied it when we were discussing that matter, and he would have disagreed with what the| right hon. Gentleman has said to-night about professionalism.
We come to the question of the difference between county councils and borough councils. That is, in principle,
I admit, just the same, but the right hon. Gentleman himself said, concerning county councils and Members of the House of Commons, that it was quite a different proposal and that Members of the House of Commons had to come here and keep two homes going and that their expenses were very heavy. I agree with him to that extent, but when he speaks of the difference between Members of the House of Commons and members of county councils, I submit that the difference is almost as great between members of county councils and members of borough and urban district councils. I will give him my own experience. I was on an urban council for a good many years, along with ten other working men, who were nearly all miners. Naturally, the meetings of the council were held in the evening. We had no desire to change it, and, so far as I remember, not a single individual ever received one penny for attending those meetings. We sacrificed our time. But the meetings of the county council were quite a different proposition. It was a physical impossibility for any of those men, myself included, to attend a meeting of the county council without losing time. The number of meetings we had to attend was very great) indeed, and, if we were to do justice to the work of the county council, and if we were to attend the meetings, we had not only to travel a long way, but we had to lose our pay. We had to travel on a good many days in the year. May I just give one quotation to illustrate that point? This comes from one of the officials of a very great county council not a thousand miles away. He takes some figures relating to three typical members of the county council, and he finds that the average number of committees and sub-committees is 29. The number of meetings of the council, of the committees, and of the sub-committees in the course of a year for those members is 205. He points out that frequently the meetings of a number of those committees are arranged to take place on the same day. The average miles travelled by members to a Committee meeting is 17 miles, making in all 34 miles per day. I submit those facts just to show that the difference between county councils and borough councils and urban councils is just as great as the difference pointed out by the Minister
between Members of this House and members of county councils. I hope the Minister will give further consideration to those people who have to lose time, and that he will give them some remuneration for the time lost.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I do not want to spend time dealing with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to come back to the specific terms of this Amendment, and those are whether we cannot get some further financial assistance to help the representatives of the county councils in the future to carry out their duties. I think the Minister will admit that there is a real difference between those who represent town councils and those who represent county councils. I do not think he appreciates how much the growth of popular representation on the town councils has actually brought about a change in the time of their meeting. It is only within the last 10 or 15 years that there has been this great swing over from the town councils' habitual afternoon meetings to the habitual evening meetings. That has been brought about by the change in the character of the representation on the town councils. It is impossible, in the nature of things, to have meetings of county councils in the evenings. Suppose there was a large representation of working men and working women on the county councils, it would be impossible to swing over to meet the situation, because that would mean in almost every case staying overnight. The work of the county councils remains to a very considerable extent afternoon work, and therefore there will be permanently this problem of how to get the best representation in the circumstances.
Speaking as one who represents a county constituency, there are two real problems which stand in the way of securing a representative system of self-government on the county councils. First, there is the fact that in the small villages the whole of the economic life in the village is in the hands of one or two persons, and for that reason it is impossible for the ordinary working man to stand out, and have his own views of politics, and make good in the way of representation on the county council. There is the economic boycott, which I think is a most outstanding characteristic in relation to
the county council. One of the outstanding reasons for the decline of Liberalism is precisely this fact, that it has not secured real freedom of opinion, and real freedom of thought, which can express itself in terms of representation on local councils, and particularly the county councils. I am aware that it is not within the terms of this particular Clause, or Amendment, to secure reform in public opinion in this direction. That will come in time.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): This is not a question of the decline of the Liberal party.

Mr. SMITH: I am not thinking that the Minister can deal with this new problem of opinion which would free the working man in the village from the point of view of representation on the county council, but he has here a first-class opportunity of remedying the second problem, which is that of providing ways and means to get a really representative system of self-government on the county council. I do not know if the Minister of Health has made an analysis of the occupations of members of county councils in this country. If he could cause such analysis to be made he would find to what an astonishing extent county councils are governed and made up in the main of landlords on the one hand and farmers on the other. That, in itself, is the best possible proof of the extraordinary difficulties that other classes within the range of the county areas have in securing adequate representation on these councils. During the time I was in Yorkshire, and during the years I was attached to the University of Sheffield, I took a certain amount of trouble to try to encourage certain kinds of men and women to serve on the county councils of Yorkshire as well as on other local authorities. I found over and over again this problem cropping up, namely, that the men could not get time off from their work or, alternatively, that they must lose wages or salary for the time that they were off. Taking these economic facts into account it is impossible for these people to contemplate duties on the county council.
On this question, I ask the Minister of Health not to take a five minutes' view but a 30 years' view. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has done in the way of granting travelling expenses.
We discussed this question on the Rating and Valuation Bill, but our Amendment was rejected. I fully appreciate the new position which the Minister of Health has taken up, but, if the right hon. Gentleman really wishes to secure in the next 30 years a thoroughly representative county council, I am sure that he cannot achieve that result simply through the payment of travelling expenses. That will not touch the real problem of the economic boycott which lies in the way of securing effective representation.
If the Minister of Health wants a lively and vigorous county council to carry out these new duties, he must do something more than merely allow travelling expenses. A big sum of money is not involved in this question, and under the present proposal the Government are only giving the councils the right to decide this matter for themselves. If the

right hon. Gentleman admits the first position which I have put before the Committee, I hope he will consent to make his economic foundation a little firmer and broader, so that every man or woman, whether they belong to the farming class, landlords, agricultural labourers or workers in factories shall have a more reasonable chance of getting on to the county council. This Bill can only achieve its object by improving the quality and character of the men who are elected as members of the county council, and I ask the right hon. Gentle man to consider afresh the Amendment which we have submitted to the Committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 109.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Iveagh, Countess of


Atkinson, C.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bethel, A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Betteton, Henry B.
Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. Q


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
England, Colonel A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bird, sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ertkine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Boothby, R. J. G.
Everard, w. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J, G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.


Brass, Captain W.
Fielden, E. B.
Long, Major Eric


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lougher, Lowis


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forrest, W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Briggs, J. Harold
Fraser, Captain Ian
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Briscoe, Richard George
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lumley, L. R.


Brockiebank, C E R.
Fremantle, Lieut -Colonel Francis C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Broun, Lindsay, Major H.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Macintyre, Ian


Brown, Brig., Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Burman, J. B.
Glyn, Major R, G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Goff, Sir Park
Margeston, Captain D.


Campbell, E. T.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Carver, Major w. H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cassels, J. O.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt Hon. B. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth. C)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hanbury, C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, H. (Wifts, Salisbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harland, A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Cope, Major Sir William
Hills, Major John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Couper, J. B
Hoare, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hoibrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pitcher, G.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Preston, William


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey. Crinsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Radford, E. A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Haliam)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Ramsden, E.
Smith-Carington. Nevlile W.
Waddington, R.


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Renfoul, G. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W, (Carlisle)


Rodd, Rt. Hon, Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Ropner, Major L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wells, S. R.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rye, F. G.
Stuart, Crichton,-Lord C.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Salmon, Major I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn!
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Coionel George


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Withers, John James


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Womersley, W. J.


Sandon, Lord
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell



Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shepperson, E. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Amman, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Biltton)
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Allred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bellamy, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Nod
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Charieton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Tewnend, A. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Welsh, J. C.


Dennison, R.
Macdonaid, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Westwood, J,


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Henderson.


Groves, T.
Purceil, A. A.

Mr. JENKINS: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the words "travelling to and from," and to insert instead thereof the word "attending."

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has explained at some length the view of the Government upon this proposal. He feels that he cannot advise the Committee to go further than to meet the request of the County Councils Association in authorising the payment of

travelling expenses for the first time. After all, other people have to pay these expenses, and they must have an opportunity of expressing their views before any further extension is made.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 112.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Atkinson, C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bainlel, Lord


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Barnett, Major Sir Richar J


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bunn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pilcher, G.


Bethel, A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Preston, William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Radford, E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hanbury, C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harland, A.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, G. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Walter
Russell Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig -Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rye, F. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Holbrook sir Arthur Richard
Salmon, Major I.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandon, Lord


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ. Bel'f'st.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Clarry, Reginald George
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carlnuton, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George
Jones, Henry Haydn ( Merioneth)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, sir Alfred
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cope, Major Sir William
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Couper, J. B.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Storry-Deans, R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cronkshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dean, Arthur Welletley
Macintyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C,
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Waddington, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on. Hull)


Edwards, J. Huch (Accrington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ellis, R. G.
Merriman, Sir F, Boyd
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


England Colonel A.
Meyer. Sir Frank
Watts, Sir Thomas


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Withers, John Jamee


Forrest, W.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Womersley, W. J.


Fraser, Captain tan
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Frece, Sir Walter de
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Oakley, T.



Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzonl, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


Gates, Percy
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Connolly, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Amnion, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, C.


Baker, Walter
Buchanan, G.
Dunnico, H.


Barnes, A.
Buxton, Rt Hon. Noel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)


Rarr, J.
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P.


Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Bellamy, A,
Cluse, W. S.
Glbbins, Joseph


Bondfield, Margaret
Compton, Joseph
Gillett, George M.




Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Longbottom, A. W.
Suillvan, J.


Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thorne, G. B. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Griffith. F. Kingsley
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Groves, T.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow Govan)
Thurtie, Ernest


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnin, H.
Viant, S. P.


Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrote)
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Williams, T. (York, Don Vatley)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Windsor, Walter


Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Lawrence, Susan
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Carthness)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.



Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.

First Schedule (Functions exercisable in rural districts exclusively by county councils) agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Discontinued grants.)

Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 113.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[10.38 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Lady wood)
Forrest, W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Clarry, Reginald George
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Frece, Sir Walter de


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gadle, Lieut. Col. Anthony


Astor, Maj Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Atkinson, C.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gates, Percy


Bainiel, Lord
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnatt, Major Sir Richard
Colman, N. C. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cope, Major Sir William
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Couper, J. B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Greens, W. P. Crawford


Bethel, A.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N )
Grenfeil, Edward C. (City of London)


Betterton, Henry B.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester. Crewe)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hanbury, C.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W, (Berwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainebro)
Harland, A.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, Major S E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Henry C


Briggs, J. Harold
Dawson, Sir Philip
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)


Bullock, Captain M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Burman, J. B.
Elits, R. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
England, Colonel A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Campbell, E- T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, R. S (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Cassels. J. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Iveagh, Countess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


James, Lieut.-Colonei Hon. Cuthbert
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt, Hon. G. F.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Storry-Deans, R.


Lamb, J. O.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Preston, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Loder, J. do V.
Radford, E. A
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Long, Major Eric
Raine, Sir Walter
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lougher, Lewis
Ramsden, E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hogh Vere
Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Luce Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Rentoul, G. S.
Tinne, J. A.


Lumley, L. R
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P,


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Waddington, R.


Macintyre, Ian
Ropner, Major L.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


McLean, Major A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Cotonel E- A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingstonon-Hull)


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacRobert, Alexander M,
Rye, F. G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyr
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, R. G. (York*. W.R., Sowerby)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Centrall


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Sinclair, Col T.(Queen's Univ. Belf'st.)
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith Carington. Neville W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smithers, Waldron



Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Penny and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hittsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Amnion, Charles George
Havday, Arthur
Sourr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersffeld)
Short, Alfred (Wednetbury]


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bellamy, A,
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, J.


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd'
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Bachanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirk wood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Tomtinson, R. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Lindley, P. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Longbottom, A. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
West wood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govant
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, R).)
Williams, C P (Denbtoh. Wrevham)


Glliett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamllton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Waller


Greenwood, A (Nelson and Coine)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Henderson.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to certain payments which heretofore have been payable out of Local Taxation Accounts or out of money which
would have been payable to those accounts or hate been required to be charged to Exchequer Contribution Accounts.)

Amendments made:

In page 104, line 37, after the word "rate" insert the words "or part of a rate."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 102.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Frece, Sir Walter de
Oakley, T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Allen, sir J. Sandeman
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Appiln, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzom, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atxinson, C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pitcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Sir J. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Preston, William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Radford, E. A.


Bentinek, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Raine, Sir Walter


Bethel, A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsden, E.


Bettertcn, Henry B.
Hanbury, C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Birchall, Major J. Dear-man
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, G. S.


Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harland, A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennetl


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Haslam, Henry C.
Rd. gles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briggs, J. Harold
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holhrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowsrby)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Burman, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sinclair, Col T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Cassels, J. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Gerald 8.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
Iveagh, Countess of
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Storry, Deans, R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stott, Lieut.-Colorel W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lamb, J. O.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cope, Major Sir William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Couper, J. B
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Loder, J. de V.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cowan. Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainabro)
Lumley, L. R.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. Seorgt Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, Ian
Waddington, R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McLean, Major A,
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Phillip
Macqulsten, F. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Drewe, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J,
Marqesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Watts, Sir Thomas


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


England, Colonel A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falte, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Cllve
Womersley, W. J


Fielden, E. B.
Mall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Forrest, W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Rnwyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George O.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Juhn, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bellamy, A,
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondneid, Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, I. E.


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, O.
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G,
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtie, Ernest


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Charieton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Ciuse, W. S.
Lindiey, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Grenfell, O. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

It being after Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (REGULATIONS).

Mr. W. HIRST: I beg to move,
That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations, dated the 26th day of November, 1928, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Consolidated Regulations, 1928, be annulled.
It is not my intention to take up too much time of the House in reciting the various circumstances associated with this question. It will be within the recollection of most hon. Members that on one or two occasions last year, when this question was discussed, we attempted from this side to put up a reasonable opposition against the imposition of this Regulation. The main point involved is that in April last year there was introduced a Regulation which prevents co-operative societies which may have drug departments or chemistry departments, from taking National Health Insurance prescriptions and writing divi-
dends on such prescriptions as were presented by their members. To our minds, as representing the important co-operative movement—and we claim that it is of some importance to the country—an unjust imposition has been placed upon our trading activities which is not warranted by any unprejudiced examination.
In 1925, the Retail Pharmacists' Union, who became our opponents on this issue, approached our co-operative committee to discuss the question of dividend being paid on National Health Insurance prescriptions, and put for ward reasons for suggesting that the practice was an unfair one. The first was the familiar suggestion that it encouraged malingering, an indictment which, we say, ought not to be levied against our people who have to have recourse to treatment. The second point they put forward was that if the practice were allowed to continue the Ministry would come to the conclusion that the fee allowed for making up prescriptions was an extortionate one, and that probably some reduction would be enforced by the Ministry. We prefer to believe that the second reason was the more important one so far as they were concerned. That same year our people sought the opinion of the Ministry of
Health, and the answer given by a very prominent official of the Ministry was, first, that the practice the co-operative societies were then engaging in was not contrary to the law of the country and was not prejudicial to the administration of the National Health Insurance Act. Further, I am informed that that important official said that by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to be an improper practice. In those circumstances, I think our people had a right to come to the conclusion that they were perfectly safe in carrying on with a policy which is adopted generally in the case of all the commodities they sell to the members of the movement.
Following upon this, in 1925, the Darlington local medical committee, knowing what was going on, and the amount of success with which our co-operative people were meeting, drew up a resolution which they submitted to the local insurance committee. In it they suggested that it was up to the local insurance com mittee to make representations to the Ministry of Health that not only was the practice encouraging malingering but that it was adding to the work of medical practitioners and increasing it beyond their capacity. The responsibility for a statement of that kind must lie with the medical practitioners. If they are carrying out a policy of renewing certificates of unfitness to work week after week, that is their fault, and not the fault of the people concerned. At the time we suggested that no evidence of malingering had been submitted, and we further submitted that the monetary benefits to be secured by malingering were so infinitesimal that they could be of no real benefit to the parties concerned.
Taking the current amount payable, which is 5d. per prescription, one can see that, with a dividend of 2s. in the £, a member would need to have 48 prescriptions before he would be able to get 2s. Not only would the financial gain be very small, but in order to secure that 2s. the treatment would have to go on for the greater part of a year, during six months of which the insured persons would be on half benefit. I would say of our people that, in the main, they are only too anxious to get back to work, because of the financial loss which they suffer while away from
their occupation, and it is ridiculous to suggest that the other consideration would deter them from resuming work as quickly as possible. From 1925 up to April of last year the Retail Pharmacists' Union had been exercising all the pressure that they could upon the Ministry to introduce the imposition of which we complain. Last year they gained some success. In May we protested in this House, and the Minister took as his leading card "malingering" and sheltered behind that explanation. He suggested that chemists were in the habit of giving gifts. We say that there is no analogy between the chemists giving gifts and the members of a cooperative society going to the chemist's department of which they are the part-owners.
Immediately after the discussion in this House last May, we had a very important co-operative congress at Hartlepool, in June, and in the co-operative movement a national congress is regarded as a very important event which carries some-weight, not only in this country but throughout the whole co-operative movement everywhere. We had an attendance of not less than 1,800 delegates, and they carried a resolution of protest against the Minister of Health and his Department for the introduction of this restriction. They then complained—and it is a very vital part of our case—that the introduction of this imposition came in May or April of last year, and it is very clear that the Minister of Health must have been receiving representations from the Retail Pharmacists' Union. A conference took place between representatives of that body and the Ministry of Health, with no one present from the co-operative movement. For the Ministry of Health or any other Department to arrange a conference with a party which proposes to impose a penalty on a third party which is not asked to be present, is a most undemocratic way of dealing with affairs of State. The next point of their resolution was that they should seek an interview with the Minister of Health. One would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to receive this deputation: but the first appeal from our committee to the Minister was met with a refusal. Finally, the Minister agreed that he would receive a representative from our
committee. That is my information, and, if I am mistaken, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put me right. He will not dispute these three points of the reply which he made to the deputation—first, that they were within their legal fights in the imposition of these consolidation regulations. Nobody was saying that they were not within their legal rights. But in 1925 a very important official of the Ministry of Health stated that there was nothing contrary to the law at that time in the practice which co-operative movement was pursuing. If it was good in 1925, then it holds good to-day. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to apologise for his lack of courtesy in not receiving the co-operative deputation and suggested, as an explanation that there had been no time. I believe that my colleagues would be the first to recognise that during this Parliament no Department has carried out so much work as the Ministry of Health in connection with legislation.
We all agree that the Minister of Health has been overburdened with work, but if it was easy enough for him to receive the representative of the Retail Pharmacists' Union it was just as easy for him to have received a representative from our society. The medical practitioners must carry some responsibility in this matter, and they certainly must assume responsibility for allowing those people to continue to receive benefits. Finally, we were told that they were legally advised when a purchaser was not a purchaser. We had to face that difficulty in certain instances, and out of a given total our trade has been reduced in those particular instances by a little over one-third. In two instances we have figures to prove that statement. The Retail Pharmacists Union is a very important body, and they have to deal with the Proprietary Articles Traders Association. We are up against that organisation however formidable it may be, and it stands to the credit of Canada that they will not allow in that country any such practice. That society claims to be a price fixing association. Heaven knows that at least there is to-day far too much profit making in connection with matters of this kind!
The time has come to stop that kind of thing, and we claim that the policy being carried out by our society is the right policy as far as it is attempting to dis-
tribute profits amongst the whole of the people involved in the association. I received a copy recently of the "Chemist and Druggist." I have not seen that paper before, but it is singular to note that one of the leading articles is an article on co-operative trading methods. That journal speaks of the disagreeable nature of the circumstances arising between the Retail Pharmacists' Union on the one hand and the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Society on the other. They say that there has been a feud created between those bodies. For my part, I welcome the establishment of that feud. Then they go on to suggest in the same article that the co-operative movement has long ceased to be what it was intended to be. It would be important for us at least to have some further explanation of that. I say to the Minister of Health that, if there is anything in what the Prime Minister said a few days ago in his speeches in the country, it is totally unfair, if not unwise in the highest development of our country, that an imposition like this should be placed on that trading agency which is making the greatest contribution towards the realisation of those virtues that any movement can make.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I allow this Debate to continue, I should like to say that I understand from the Motion which the hon. Member has moved that his objection to these Regulations is founded on one Regulation, No. 27, relating to the supply of drugs or appliances. Am I right in that supposition?

Mr. HIRST: I think it is true to say that our main objection is against Subsection (4) of Part I of the Third Schedule, which reads:
A chemist shall not give, promise or ask for any prescription any gift or reward, whether by a share of profit on present business or by way of discount, rebate or otherwise, as an inducement to or in consideration of his presenting an order for drugs or appliances on a prescription form provided by the Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like information from the Minister of Health as to whether that particular Order wa3 not made in April, 1928.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Mr. SPEAKER: If that be so, I can hardly see that this Address for which
the hon. Member is moving can be in order now, because he will understand that these are not new Orders. The particular one with which we are now dealing is a consolidation of Regulations.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: On that point of Order. It is understood under the Statute that the consolidation of the Regulations has to be laid on the Table in draft, and an Order has been so laid in draft. Surely, it is within the province of any hon. Member of the House to raise any objection, if he so desires, to any part of the Regulations laid on the Table in draft.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that is the case. I think that the Rule only applies when a Regulation is laid on the Table for the first time, and not to a consolidation of various Regulations.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Further on the point of Order. We have taken the only constitutional procedure open to us. A. consolidated set of Regulations has been laid on the Table, and we therefore pray, in the terms of this Motion, not against a section only, although we address an argument to that, but against the consolidation of the Regulations, because that contains it. That is the only course we can take.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not had very long to consider this question, and perhaps the House will excuse me if I am not as explicit on it as I otherwise might be. It seems to me that, even if the House were to agree to this Motion, it would not have any effect at all in a court of law.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated assent.

Mr. BARNES: Further on the point of Order. May I ask whether the House is in a position to vote against the consolidated Regulations'! If that be so, surely we are entitled to discuss them.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not had time to consider the matter. It was not until I heard the hon. Member's speech that I gathered that his Motion was confined
to one particular Regulation among these consolidated Regulations. There are, I understand, several new Regulations among these consolidated Regulations, and against those, naturally, a Humble Address could have been moved now and would have had effect, but upon a Regulation that was ordered in April of last year I hardly see that it would be in order to protest against the whole of the Regulations in these consolidating Regulations.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am much obliged, Sir, for the opinion which you have expressed, but are we not entitled to vote against the general consolidation which has been laid on the Table of the House, and, because there are new Regulations included in the general consolidation, surely it must have effect in a court of law.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I put this point to you, Sir. Seeing that this is a question of consolidation of existing Regulations, with which, no doubt, some new Regulations are connected, would not the effect of the Address being passed and a consolidation not taking place be to leave the Regulations which have already been passed in force, and, if so, would not that include this particular Regulation against which the Motion is directed?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has put the point better than I could do. That is exactly the reason why I do not think the Motion is in order.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If you rule that, Sir, we must accept it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do rule that.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock